Things are really heating up with the old Dr Pepper building on Mockingbird at Central. A few weeks ago, it appeared the building was destined for demolition, but now those plans are uncertain.
Dal-Mac Investment Corporation purchased the building from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on May 28, 1993. Since that time, nearby neighborhood representatives, preservationists and businesses have sought to find creative economic alternatives to save the existing building.
These valiant efforts appeared to be heading nowhere.
This fall, Dal-Mac applied to have the moratorium restricting its right to demolish the building lifted. At that point, things really heated up.
Meanwhile, the Landmark Commission began considering provisions for a Dr Pepper Headquarters historic overlay district. Adoption of such a district would make demolition of the building even more difficult.
Preservationists want the historic district provision approved and the hardship application denied. Dal-Mac wants the historic preservation district denied and the hardship application approved.
At this point, I decided to become more involved in the dispute, even though the matter had not officially reached the City Council. I convened the parties – preservationists, neighborhood leaders, the Landmark commission chair and Dal-Mac (namely Bob Moss, Bobbi Bilnoski, Trudy O’Reilly and Kirk McJunkin).
I requested that they enter into a process similar to the one used on the Awalt Building Downtown, which resulted in that building being saved. The process allows bidders to present proposals on how they would use the property, based on a guaranteed minimum price for sale to which Dal-Mac would agree.
Preliminary indications have been very positive. All parties have, for the most part, agreed in principle to engage in the process. The City, DART, neighborhood interests and the developers have all agreed to pick up an equal share of the $20,000 to $30,000 tab for the process.
It is my hope that we will know by April whether an economically viable alternative exists for the Dr Pepper building. It is my intent not to approve any hardship relief, nor place any further restrictions on the property at this time, pending successful completion of this process.
In April, if we find an adaptive re-use and the building can be saved, everyone can walk away happy. However, if all parties have acted in good faith and participated in the process, and no reasonable use can be found, it would only be reasonable at that point to allow Dal-Mac to proceed with other plans for the property, although that would certainly not be my desire.
There is more good news.
Dal-Mac has renewed its discussions with some potential users for lease space in the old Dr Pepper building. These negotiations appeared to have broken off several months ago, but when this particular potential tenant realized that Dal-Mac was contemplating entertaining into a process that could result in this potential tenant’s inability to ever lease the building or that the building might ultimately be demolished, the potential tenant became very serious about the idea of pursuing a lease.
Although it is far too early to tell whether or not this will be the user that allows us to save the building, if it can be saved at all, this is a positive and interesting development.
This is a difficult case. Almost everyone that I have spoken with (and this is my personal opinion) would like to see the building saved.
At the same time, I have great respect for individual property rights and do not wish to preclude the owner from using his property for the highest and best use in the long run.
My hope is that those two seemingly competing goals can be merged in this instance and the building can be saved with an economically vibrant adaptive re-use.
One way of the other, we should know something by April.
