In the Push for a More Efficient City, Dallas City Hall May Have to Die

Last night’s Dallas City Council vote did not call for a wrecking ball to be at the Marilla Street plaza ready to take down City Hall as soon as the sun rose this morning. But what the members sitting around the horseshoe voted for could clear the path to that type of drama. 

After three hours of executive session, 62 agenda items and dozens of public speakers, the council voted 12-3 to direct City Manager Kimberly Tolbert to explore alternatives to the current City Hall building and conduct an economic analysis of the area. The move came amid a ballooning estimate of what the deferred maintenance on the building would cost to fix; what was once $80 million has now reached $350 million, and city staff have warned the costs of repairs could go even higher. 

The council has agreed that the status quo cannot continue, but only a small faction seems to believe that finding the money to renovate the building designed by the renowned architect I.M. Pei should be the path forward. While council member Paul Ridley proposed an amendment Wednesday night that would have slowed the process by first directing a third-party firm to conduct an evaluation of City Hall’s needs, function and wear and tear before a real estate assessment is done, the motion failed. A second motion, which would have created a task force of outside professionals to review the assessments and make recommendations to the council, also failed.

Several council members responded to Ridley’s resolution by emphasizing the city’s ability to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” They stated their belief that a real estate survey and an internal building inspection can be conducted simultaneously. 

“[City Hall] shouldn’t be a sacred cow,” said council member Gay Donnell Willis, who noted that although a majority of the evening’s speakers had called for the building to be saved, emails and phone calls from constituents have had a more approving attitude toward looking outward for City Hall’s future. 

The approved resolution calls for city staff to conduct an assessment of the office space required by the city’s various departments, while also reviewing office space available for purchase or lease that could accommodate those needs. The city will also bring in outside experts to assess the deferred maintenance costs of the Marilla Street building, consider the potential economic benefits of redeveloping the site and conduct a market study to determine the best development approach for the area. The results of those inquiries are expected to be presented to the council in early 2026.

Council members who voted in favor of the resolution repeatedly reminded the audience in the council chamber that the vote was about obtaining information, not a vote for selling or relocating from City Hall. Council member Chad West, who has found himself driving the conversation about City Hall’s future as chair of the council’s Finance Committee, acknowledged that the conversation was an “emotional” one, but reminded the horseshoe that the discussion was initiated by the mayor in the August document that announced committee assignments. 

At the time, Mayor Eric Johnson directed the Finance Committee to “determine whether Dallas City Hall and other municipal facilities effectively support city operations and best serve the citizens of Dallas. Consider all potential options and identify the most fiscally responsible course to address the mounting deferred maintenance and carrying costs of Dallas City Hall.” 

While that write-up doesn’t explicitly mention the word of 2025, “efficiency,” it aligns pretty well with Johnson’s broader push to streamline Dallas’ governance. He created the council’s Government Efficiency Committee in August. He pushed (unsuccessfully) for the council to take bold measures to pare down the city’s burgeoning budget during the September money talks. His seventh State of the City address, given Thursday morning, emphasized his disdain for “bloat” and “mission creep.” The Finance Committee’s instructions are just another indicator that if there is waste in the way City Hall is running, Johnson isn’t down with it. 

Across government, technology and business, there is a growing push to maximize output while minimizing time, effort and money. We are ripping things down to the studs, then asking ourselves what the cheapest and quickest way to rebuild is, or if rebuilding is even worth it at all. And if we look at City Hall — a 48-year-old building that was designed to showcase power and promise rather than promote productivity — through no lens other than the scrutinous metric of efficiency, it is going to fail every single time. 

There is virtually nothing efficient about preservation. There is very little about history, art or literature that meets the input-output criteria of this efficiency era. And that is the disconnect that much of the frustration between the public and the horseshoe on the topic of City Hall seems to be rooted in. While efficiency doesn’t account for romance or nostalgia, Wednesday night’s meeting showed that for many community members, and some on the council, those are very real factors in the conversation about City Hall’s future. 

Dallas resident Rawland Gilland described the building as “hard to love but remarkable,” a symbol that showed him Dallas’ playful side after he’d sworn off the city, having stood two blocks from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. 

Dallas resident and filmmaker Quinn Mathews said he feels the conversation about City Hall’s future represents “the soul of our city, it’s not just about a building.” 

Joanna Hampton, a Dallas city plan commissioner, urged the council to conduct a third-party facility assessment on the building before deciding whether to relocate. She called the building “the heart of” Dallas that stands as a “beacon.” 

Council member Paula Blackmon wistfully recalled walking through the building in the early 2000s while pregnant with her son and working under former-Mayor Tom Leppert. She told the horseshoe that in moments of high stress, she’d sit on the balconies outside of the council offices that overlook downtown and have the feeling that she was living out a dream. Blackmon was one of three council members who did not vote in support of Wednesday’s directive.

Since the conversation about City Hall’s future was launched a few weeks ago, some community members have speculated that the potential relocation is the result of a back-door deal with a developer such as the Dallas Mavericks, which is looking to build a new stadium. That conspiracy has only inflamed emotions more, although some council members attempted to assure last night’s audience that “there is no decision that has already been made.”

Still, come Tolbert’s findings in 2026, the council will be forced to try to bridge heightened emotions and hard numbers — a task that is easier said than done, especially when the building so many hold in high regard also regularly floods and fails.

“We’re attached to buildings. We’re attached to things. It’s our history. That’s who we are, and there’s nothing wrong with that,” said council member Maxie Johnson. “However, the opportunity to grow is important. To make sure that we have a functioning building is important.”