Jump to content

Republic Square: Mixed-Use Development For ExxonMobil Chemical Campus


fernz

Recommended Posts

Looks cool, but I thought people in the burbs moved there for the suburban lifestyle. Is this thing more of a novelty to drive your car to, have a cup of coffee, and pretend you're living "in the middle of the action"? Seems like a project dreamed up by some wealthy guys that read an article about Millenials and thought they understood us after reading it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If done right (with some Metro connections of some sort) it could allow office workers to get away with no car during the work day - usually those areas you'd have to drive to get lunch somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks cool, but I thought people in the burbs moved there for the suburban lifestyle. Is this thing more of a novelty to drive your car to, have a cup of coffee, and pretend you're living "in the middle of the action"? Seems like a project dreamed up by some wealthy guys that read an article about Millenials and thought they understood us after reading it.

 

obviously you've never been to city centre.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the idea. Urban pockets spread all over the metro = a smaller feeling metro.

Or idk, the beginning of a larger urban metro?

As this area and Westcreek continue to grow there will be a large and continuous streak of towers and high rises lining I-10 and the Beltway.

This project only furthers that idea.

Edited by BigFootsSocks
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or idk, the beginning of a larger urban metro?

As this area and Westcreek continue to grow there will be a large and continuous streak of towers and high rises lining I-10 and the Beltway.

This project only furthers that idea.

There is a difference between increasing the urban feel of an already dense area and lining a highway with towers and then forcing some pedestrian feel. West creek is in no way comparable to the EC. Uptown has the makings of a fully fledged edge city and Westcreek is just an extension of that. The push for enhanced PT will only enhance that. The energy corridor on the other hand is merely a string of suburban campuses doted here and there with amenities.

As for the comparison to Chicago, the comparison is also dissimilar. You are comparing full fledged edge cities to the energy corridor.

Can't run away from it, the spread of all these campuses may make for an impressive drive by site but it sure is hell makes for a less impressive urban core.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else feel like they just threw down a plot of grass in the middle of a bunch of buildings and are hoping people view this at City Centre 2.0?

 

Maybe I just haven't seen enough renderings or it's possibly all the people in suites in the renderings, but it feels very corporate and somewhat cold - no real cohesion or comfortable feeling.

 

It doesn't give me a vibe that it's a place people would want to live either. Kind of neat place to work, but ultimately a poor mans City Centre.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else feel like they just threw down a plot of grass in the middle of a bunch of buildings...Kind of neat place to work, but ultimately a poor mans City Centre.

Yeah, and just think, this is the pie in the sky pipe dream. If that is what it looks like now can you imagine what will actually get built after things get scaled back?

I think a poor man's city centre is generous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference between increasing the urban feel of an already dense area and lining a highway with towers and then forcing some pedestrian feel. West creek is in no way comparable to the EC. Uptown has the makings of a fully fledged edge city and Westcreek is just an extension of that. The push for enhanced PT will only enhance that. The energy corridor on the other hand is merely a string of suburban campuses doted here and there with amenities.

As for the comparison to Chicago, the comparison is also dissimilar. You are comparing full fledged edge cities to the energy corridor.

Can't run away from it, the spread of all these campuses may make for an impressive drive by site but it sure is hell makes for a less impressive urban core.

All good points, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. We shouldn't be surprised to see a development like this. Yes, Westcreek is a fraction of the entire EC, but look at the developments we're seeing now from the Millennium tower on up. There's still quite a few cranes heading North along the Beltway after Westpark.

In due time, we will see a more "connected" line of high rises along this portion of the Beltway, as a sort of "off-shoot" of the entire EC.

With the success of City Centre, it's no wonder we're seeing a development such as the one proposed. Cypress has a miniature version off of 1960 in the works. Kingwood also has a more upscale version in the works too.

Edited by BigFootsSocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. We shouldn't be surprised to see a development like this. Yes, Westcreek is a fraction of the entire EC, but look at the developments we're seeing now from the Millennium tower on up. There's still quite a few cranes heading North along the Beltway after Westpark.

In due time, we will see a more "connected" line of high rises along this portion of the Beltway, as a sort of "off-shoot" of the entire EC.

With the success of City Centre, it's no wonder we're seeing a development such as the one proposed. Cypress has a miniature version off of 1960 in the works. Kingwood also has a more upscale version in the works too.

 

I think this sums up HoustonisHome's point. From my signature:

 

  • “In cities like Houston that are contemporary, you drive there, and then you do your urban thing, and then get back in your car and drive home,” - Susan Rogers

That's what this development is, and City Centre for the most part.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this sums up HoustonisHome's point. From my signature:

  • “In cities like Houston that are contemporary, you drive there, and then you do your urban thing, and then get back in your car and drive home,” - Susan Rogers
That's what this development is, and City Centre for the most part.

Ok, no. Well yeah. I get that, I understand these points, all valid, I might add. Not saying any of you are wrong.

I'm saying we shouldnt be shocked too see these kinds of developments. We should welcome it! These kinda of projects will only get better as time passes and companies compete against each other for the ultimate "mixed use" project until a point where they become extensions of one another.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me "Urban" is unpredictability. A surprise. A discovery around an unexplored corner. This place, like emerge Woodlands, may be pleasant and dense, beautiful even. But, it's not really what I'd call urban. It'll be way too programmed, and too presented and too Boring. It'll be the same restaurants and "bars" as any shopping center will have. I really don't think that this is what urbanites want. Too safe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But The Woodlands is growing. There's already a residential high rise in development, with "many more planned" (according to Urbannizer in that particular thread), as well as the third Anadarko Tower.

There's a trend here guys, and I may just be a little baked but it's not like it doesn't make sense. It just all comes down to the way Houston as a city develops; it's own unique mix of sprawl and urbanism in localized pockets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigFootsSocks, I don't think you full appreciate what some of us are saying. Yes Houston is growing but it's not what some people would call "smart" growth. Houstons metro area is about 10,000 Sq miles, the urban area is about 1700 Sq mile. Trying to develop all 2000 Sq miles into a dense urban core is ridiculously difficult ( and really each year this 1700 Sq miles gets bigger and bigger as development spreads out).

Let's put it in perspective using similar land area examples. Los Angeles and London are good examples. Los Angeles has been the poster child for sprawl for the last 50+ years. Their urban area has over 12 million people and is about 1700 Sq miles like ours. We only have 5 million.

The entire London metro, complete with cow fields and acres and acres of pasture has almost as many people as the Los Angeles urban area but in only 600 Sq miles (the size of the city of Houston).

We are on the LA model with miles and miles of low density development. We have the same area but less than half the population. So think of it this way, with traffic as bad as it already is, if we double the population we will still be less dense than the poster child for urban sprawl. Kinda sad. And that is assuming that the Urban area does not expand ( with the grand parkway the area will probably tripple).

All I'm saying is some people like a nice built out environment, I don't think we will build out the inner loop in the next 100 years so fake urban centers 200 miles out don't give me a warm feeling. Like lockmat said houston is a drive to and drive back home kind of town. Don't try to force pedestrian areas in the middle of anti pedestrian areas.

I greatly prefer dense pockets of development sustained for a few miles then surrounded by lots of rural areas before the density picks up again. Continuous stretches of low to medium density only makes for horrible comnutes. It would be much easier ride to work if there was no development between downtown, TMC, UPTOWN, EC, etc but that mentality of feeling in the gaps worth a string of low density is just making living here worse and worse. No thanks, I will stick to the core

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me "Urban" is unpredictability. A surprise. A discovery around an unexplored corner. This place, like emerge Woodlands, may be pleasant and dense, beautiful even. But, it's not really what I'd call urban. It'll be way too programmed, and too presented and too Boring. It'll be the same restaurants and "bars" as any shopping center will have. I really don't think that this is what urbanites want. Too safe.

 

Technically, aren't even most suburbs considered urban?

 

I think another component that most of us think of as true urbanism is walkability that extends beyond a single development (Republic Square) and the potential to live without a car. And this scenario doesn't require high rises either.

 

But you're right, this could potentially be the first cookie-cutter mixed-use corporate complex in Houston. At least City Centre doesn't have that corporate feeling.

 

Maybe this trend will be the upscale version of the Houston strip center? Throw a bunch of mid/highrises together, put a park in the middle, add a few restaurants, apartments and a hotel and viola, you have your "luxury mixed-use" development.

 

Or maybe not.

 

At least these are spaced out relatively far enough that mostly only those people that live in the area will visit them. So someone in the Woodlands won't frequent this place or City Centre and vice versa.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lockmat. I think technically Suburbs are Sub-Urban. ;-)

But, you're right. This place will be pretty impressive but it is a glorified shopping center with offices and hotels, which is drive in/drive out, built to contain it's tenants and visitors. Nothing about it encourages true urbanism. It won't play well with it neighbors. However, it's an improvement over what else exists on I-10 outside the beltway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigFootsSocks, I don't think you full appreciate what some of us are saying. Yes Houston is growing but it's not what some people would call "smart" growth. Houstons metro area is about 10,000 Sq miles, the urban area is about 1700 Sq mile. Trying to develop all 2000 Sq miles into a dense urban core is ridiculously difficult ( and really each year this 1700 Sq miles gets bigger and bigger as development spreads out).

Let's put it in perspective using similar land area examples. Los Angeles and London are good examples. Los Angeles has been the poster child for sprawl for the last 50+ years. Their urban area has over 12 million people and is about 1700 Sq miles like ours. We only have 5 million.

The entire London metro, complete with cow fields and acres and acres of pasture has almost as many people as the Los Angeles urban area but in only 600 Sq miles (the size of the city of Houston).

We are on the LA model with miles and miles of low density development. We have the same area but less than half the population. So think of it this way, with traffic as bad as it already is, if we double the population we will still be less dense than the poster child for urban sprawl. Kinda sad. And that is assuming that the Urban area does not expand ( with the grand parkway the area will probably tripple).

All I'm saying is some people like a nice built out environment, I don't think we will build out the inner loop in the next 100 years so fake urban centers 200 miles out don't give me a warm feeling. Like lockmat said houston is a drive to and drive back home kind of town. Don't try to force pedestrian areas in the middle of anti pedestrian areas.

I greatly prefer dense pockets of development sustained for a few miles then surrounded by lots of rural areas before the density picks up again. Continuous stretches of low to medium density only makes for horrible comnutes. It would be much easier ride to work if there was no development between downtown, TMC, UPTOWN, EC, etc but that mentality of feeling in the gaps worth a string of low density is just making living here worse and worse. No thanks, I will stick to the core

As for your first point, I apologize if it seems that way to you, but rest assured I have never disagreed with any of your points, nor have I "unappreciated" them.

I don't think you're wrong about Houston's growth. I do, however, disagree with the LA comparison. We're in a period of time where our downtown core is receiving a huge second chance to become its own cultural center for this city, whereas LA does have a supertall, yes, but it's still LA.

My only point in all of this is that these types of developments are following a distinct path along I-10 and the Westcreek "off-shoot" and the easiest way of observing this, if you can't drive down I-10 soon, pull up Google earth and look at the 3D buildings. Small to medium size high rises for the landscape around this corridor.

Yes, Houston's sprawl is uncontainable; that does not mean that these inner areas will remain untouched. Along this stretch of the EC we are seeing numerous examples of low rise and 1-story retail buildings demolished for these high rise projects. Hell, look at the project to repurpose the detonation basin off of Gessner into a full-fledged park and mixed use area. Where else in Houston, of all places, have we seen a developer turn a freaking ditch into something as beautiful as that? Besides the Buffalo Bayou project, I can't think of anything.

All I'm saying is, this specific development, while it is most certainly a cookie-cutter project, will only further spur more interconnected developments like this, City Centre, etc. around this area. These types of projects should be the wet-dreams of HAIF!

High rise? Check.

Mixed-use? Check

Walkable "urban" environment? Check

I too do not wish to see this city become the next LA, and it's projects like this that give me hope. Sure, it's bland, but the next developer to propose something like this will have to up their game to compete.

It may be very far down in the future, but this area of Houston is going up up up!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This place will be pretty impressive but it is a glorified shopping center with offices and hotels, which is drive in/drive out, built to contain it's tenants and visitors. Nothing about it encourages true urbanism. It won't play well with it neighbors. However, it's an improvement over what else exists on I-10 outside the beltway.

i fail to see the difference between this "glorified shopping center with offices and hotels", and that of River Oaks District, GreenStreet, CityCentre, etc. besides the location being outside of the beltway. IMO its a great location. the Energy Corridor could support a development like this, and its right on the Terry Hershey Park trail system. i believe they even said in a statement a while back that they wanted to bring a bike shop to one of the retail spots fronting the park. if thats not encouraging true urbanism, then i don't know what developments in Houston are.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will respond to both Cloud and BigFootsSocks at the same time because it's related.

The difference is River Oaks District and Green street are improving the walkability of areas already on track to beind urban. City Centre and this development simply serve to make traffic worse by just extending strings of buildings. Can't you see that if people are getting on the highways every 1000 feet for 20 miles that just makes for a traffic nightmare.

Yes, the Houston area is more dense on average than the Philadelphia area because we maintain 3000 people per square mile for 40 miles while never getting passed 10, 000 ppm for long. Philly on the other hand has extremely dense areas surrounded by nothing. That is how Philly gets away with crappie freeways. They don't need them like we do. Again having a 20 mile skyline is only good for pictures. It kills pedestrian activity, it makes public transportation darn near impossible and it hinders the already dense pockets from improving faster by being in direct competion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't get me wrong, i see the point. I'm just saying the Energy Corridor has what, 20+ million sq ft of office space, and over a million residents? you don't think that area is urban enough and populated enough with a decent demographic to support a development like this in that location? imagine if every urban development were built in the core. all 4 million of the people who don't live in the city of Houston would be driving in and out of the city during rush hour every day making traffic that much worse. if its spread out it distributes traffic across the metro instead of just having everything inside 610 be a shit storm.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 million Sq feet of suburban office stretched over a 10 mile space poorly connected by bus you mean? No!

Also I didn't say it could not support the development, i said i do not like what such developments promote.

And I disagree 101% with you on the commuting scenario. First off you are imagining all the jobs in and around downtown, yet the people are still clamoring to live in Katy and Cypress. Developments like these spur more residential development around it, if the jobs were only as you described it the residential would be more clustered around it instead of Katy thus people would have shorter commutes and thus less clogging of highways.

Second the density of such a scenario would make public transit a more desirable option and thus even less congestion on highways. Heck more people would opt to walk to work.

Our master planned communities were built to have people live closer to where they work. That includes friendswood, kingwood, even greenspoint. All suburban sprawl developed by exxon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

eh, you can dislike the style of development all you want (can't say I'm in love with suburban sprawl either), but that doesn't change the fact that those people and those jobs already exist out there.. they aren't going to suddenly uproot and move to the core. i think you are forgetting that a big reason a lot of people live in the suburbs is because the cost of living is cheaper and you get much more "bang for your buck". the sprawl of Houston goes hand in hand with the affordability that has been bringing people to the metro in droves. it may not be great for the overall urbanity and pedestrian experience of the core, but its one of the reasons our city continues to thrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...