Dallas adopts ForwardDallas, city’s revamped land-use guide — with some changes

The Dallas City Council approved, at last, a contentious plan for how it wants to grow over the next 10 years.
ForwardDallas 2.0 was adopted 11-4 on Wednesday. More than 50 speakers argued for and against the plan at a public hearing. Mayor Eric Johnson and council members Carolyn King Arnold, Jesse Moreno and Cara Mendelsohn voted against the plan.
“Not the perfect ground, but a middle ground,” said council member Gay Donnell Willis about the evolution of the plan.
It was apparent from Wednesday’s discussion and months of debate between single-family homeowners and housing advocates that not everyone was in agreement. Single-family homeowners wanted more protections for existing neighborhoods, while housing advocates urged the City Council to approve the plan.
Get the latest politics news from North Texas and beyond.
Or with:
By signing up you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Council members seemingly arrived Wednesday with a compromise.
They had hashed out their differences behind closed doors and came up with a list of amendments to protect the character of existing neighborhoods. They addressed concerns of misinformation and anger often directed at city staffers and were emphatic that the document was a game plan for the future.
Council members introduced amendments to require a review of the plan within five years and consider revisions in the next 10 years. They also sought to expand a host of design and preservation tools to respond to the “changing conditions in established neighborhoods.”
Members also changed land-use recommendations for the area around Mountain Creek Lake from regional open space, which includes park land, to a utility placetype reflecting the existing power plant properties. District 3 council member Zarin Gracey, whose district covers the area and was concerned about neighborhood input in the land’s future, successfully pushed for an amendment to revert it to a greenspace and require a master plan review to assess the neighborhood’s compatibility with the power station.
Another amendment tackled problems that emerged two years ago and affected community members in planned development district 830, between Llewellyn and Polk roads, near the Bishop Arts neighborhood.
In 2022, The Dallas Morning News reported the zoning for the area allowed the teardown of affordable, historic housing for overpriced apartment complexes. Wednesday’s amendment put the area in a placetype discouraging development that did not match the neighborhood’s character.
These changes almost fell apart after council member Paul Ridley introduced an amendment.
Ridley’s amendment would have downgraded townhomes and duplexes from primary to secondary use in single-family neighborhoods and put them in the same bracket as neighborhoods like Vickery Meadow and Oak Lawn, which consisted mostly of mixed-use, multifamily housing.
Council member Chad West, visibly perplexed, said council members Adam Bazaldua, Omar Narvaez, Kathy Stewart and Ridley had ironed out amendments and reached a “grand compromise.” He said if each member was given the responsibility to formulate the document, the council would have 15 different plans.
“It’s frankly shocking that one of the authors of the amendments is going to blow that up today with a brand new amendment,” West said.
Then, council member Cara Mendelsohn introduced another amendment to remove townhomes and duplexes from single-family neighborhoods.
Both motions failed.
A book of preambles, the enormous document presents a vision for every nook and cranny of the city and tries to answer evergreen questions in discussions at the City Plan Commission.
Questions include: What can the city do to protect its most vulnerable neighborhoods from teardowns or pollutants emitted from industries? Can Dallas duplicate efforts to grow other transit-friendly areas as it did to increase mixed-use development around areas like the Mockingbird DART station? Can the city reimagine empty parking lots?
Single-family homeowners were concerned that introducing housing types such as duplexes and triplexes, as well as accessory dwelling units in existing neighborhoods, would invite out-of-state investors to swoop in, buy housing stock and hike housing prices.
Nate Weymouth, a District 13 resident, said making single-family neighborhoods more dense will not deter private equities from converting triplexes and duplexes to rentals, as they are more “valuable to institutional investors.”
Others said high-rises would sprout near detached homes, adding that the constantly changing nature of the documents grew distrust for city government.
During a Sept. 3 economic development committee meeting, Ridley introduced amendments to reinstate language around protecting neighborhoods.
But housing advocates said new housing options can serve residents interested in buying a townhome or attached houses, often referred to as middle housing. Some said adding gentle density can strengthen neighborhoods and keep residents from moving to suburbs like Forney.
Ann Lott, executive director of the Inclusive Communities Project, said amendments to limit housing types and delete language protected the status quo and risked violating Fair Housing laws.
“Don’t heed to the NIMBY voices that shout ‘not in your neighborhood.’ Stay true to your housing policy,” Lott said.
West, representing District 1, had lingering concerns that removing middle housing, like accessory dwelling units, didn’t fully address the city’s housing needs. Still, it was a compromise, and he said he was willing to accept it.
Environmental justice advocates said the complexities of homeownership may mean nothing if people don’t have access to a safe, livable environment. How the document addresses the goal of environmental justice is a point Andrea Gilles, chief planner overseeing ForwardDallas’ journey through the council chamber, said she was proud of.
Evelyn Mayo, co-chair of Downwinders at Risk, a Dallas-based environmental justice group that has worked with communities impacted by injustices like Shingle Mountain, said local and federal policies have consistently harmed low-income, Black and brown families. Adopting this plan, Mayo said, is the first step toward environmental justice.
“This plan alone won’t rezone (environmental justice) communities immediately,” Mayo said. Community members wished it did and removed industries like GAF from West Dallas. “But it’s the first step in the new way forward,” Mayo said.
Dallas is a city with a rapidly aging population. In the meantime, the city’s housing needs are at a point where a generation of residents under the age of 40, mostly renters, cannot afford the current housing supply.
Brita Andercheck, the city’s chief data officer, told council members in an Aug. 27 meeting that single-family parcels make up 35% of the city’s land use but only 4% of the city’s tax base. In comparison, mixed-use parcels make up 0.2% of the city’s tax base and contribute 40%.
The story of a comprehensive land-use plan began 20 years ago when The News came out with a report called “Dallas at the tipping point.”
The report said Dallas was underperforming at the time in comparison with its peer cities and was spiraling into decline. Much of the performance was attributed to a need for a clearer vision in City Hall. The city had no plan or metrics for tracking its performance and was ceding residents to its suburban partners.
Soon after, the first iteration of ForwardDallas was born in 2006.
In it, the city’s future was wrapped in plans for mixed-use projects near DART stations and infill projects in neighborhoods in and around the urban core in downtown Dallas, along the Stemmons corridor near the Southwestern Medical District, South Dallas and the Trinity River Corridor.
The latest version envisions how the oft-underserved southern Dallas neighborhoods can benefit from reducing their exposure to heavy industry. It’s far more granular than its predecessor and has a bigger emphasis on environmental justice goals.
A deep look into the plans, however, shows many similarities between the city’s struggles then and now.
Previous reporting from The News’ archives shows a familiar fight to preserve the suburban outlook of single-family neighborhoods in the city persisted even back then, though the older plan was dinged for being inadequately focused on growing the southern sector.
Like then, City Hall is still in desperate need of residential solutions. Housing needs have grown, and the stock is limited.