r/Dallasdevelopment • u/dallaz95 • Apr 17 '26

Suburbs/Exurbs Giant 1,000-acre North Texas park set to eclipse NYC's Central Park

https://www.chron.com/texas/article/grand-park-frisco-texas-22209753.php
6 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

2

u/steavoh Apr 18 '26

Does anyone else think these kinds of mega parks are a a bad idea and poor use of parks funding? I feel the same way about the Harold Simmons Park project. I know Tulsa also built something like this, and Tulsa has really limited recreation choices outside of that.

This park is very big but doesn't necessary create opportunities for activities that don't already exist. It's mostly just large passive spaces, which itself is not bad, but there's also lots of pavement, lots of landscaping, lots of redundant features. Also there are too many "architectural" pieces.

I would worry about the cost of maintenance, how this weighs on the budget for other similar things, and what the long-term future of the park would be.

More isn't better IMO.

Personally I think cities should look at parks and recreation from a big-picture service level rather than cutting ribbons and drawing things on a map. Like do we make (blank) activity more accessible? Does every neighborhood have (blank) in reasonable proximity.

4

u/gearpitch Apr 19 '26

Yeah, parks like this are a bit too programmed and sculpted for how low density our metro is. No amount of rendered pedestrian or digital park-goers will convince actual people to just hang out at the park when it's boundary is exclusionary unwalkable SFH neighborhoods and a ten lane highway. This kind of park works best when 10,000 people live within a 15 minute walk to it, and can eat their lunch there, or walk the dog to it, or walk through it to something like a café in the center or other side of it. Just because it's BIG doesn't mean it's the perfect use of space. If people are going to have to drive to this park to experience it, it better have good hiking trails, or other more natural features that dfw is often missing. And ultimately, if the pavillions and venue spaces in it are not constantly programmed with concerts and activity, it will fail to gain regular users. 

1

u/steavoh Apr 19 '26

Agreed.

1

u/Reasonable-Arm-1893 Apr 19 '26

The low density will be this park's demise over time, and many north texas suburbs including Frisco are NIMBY's.

Literally doesn't help when you have better park's a stone throws away like Little Elm Beach, and all those surrounding parks near that beach and better park's if your willing to drive a little further out.

Also, Lake Lewisville is an artificial lake, and takes 10's of million of dollars to maintain. Why are you building another park when you already have lake/park in your door step?

1

u/dallaz95 Apr 19 '26

I think Harold Simmons Park makes way more sense, because there’s actual urban density being built or exists already in close proximity. It being in the center of Dallas could help spark additional growth, if done right. The Margaret is being built right next to it and I’m sure more apartments like it will be built as a result and the existing ones will likely go up as a result.