[Houston19514]

sevfiv, on Thursday, November 17th, 2005 @ 12:49pm, said:

it's a real word/verb though

"to incentivize"

Well, I'll be... When did that happen? ;-)

[Houston Retail]

Im just glad to see something happen to the 800 block. This block is key in connecting Main St Square to the entertainment district as it now exists. There have been alot of false starts on the 800 block. A bar was attempting to build out the ground floor of Battlestiens and ran out of money (they actually tried to build a dance floor that would raise on hydrolics!), the west building with it proposed plans, stowers with its potential and the mafridge building in the middle of the block... hopefully something will happen with one of those as well.
And yes, these things all take time. The wheel is in motion. Just be a bit more patient. Or go do it yourself

[Houstonian in Iraq]

Houston Retail, on Thursday, November 17th, 2005 @ 9:47pm, said:

Im just glad to see something happen to the 800 block. This block is key in connecting Main St Square to the entertainment district as it now exists.

For those of y'all not familiar with this location.


Development is very much welcomed here

[sevfiv]

yeah just curious, does anyone happen to know what part of the bender/san jacinto hotel/building was on the gate closest in the picture? (i have a tile, and wanted to know what it may be from (walkway, etc), and i lost that postcard).

This post has been edited by sevfiv: Thursday, November 17, 2005 at 11:26 PM

[Montrose1100]

Note to readers, there is no fence

[Subdude]

sevfiv, on Thursday, November 17th, 2005 @ 10:25pm, said:

yeah just curious, does anyone happen to know what part of the bender/san jacinto hotel/building was on the gate closest in the picture? (i have a tile, and wanted to know what it may be from (walkway, etc), and i lost that postcard).

Closest to the gate was the section that was built out in the early 1950s when the Bender Hotel was expanded and converted into offices and retail If you look at the wall of the Battlesteins building next door you can see a very clear "ghost" image of the Bender, complete with reverse "Bender Hotel" signs. Here is a picture from another thread.

[sevfiv]

it was a cloudy day, so it is not very clear...

This post has been edited by sevfiv: Friday, November 18, 2005 at 12:53 PM

[77017]

"1, 2, and 3 dollars? Holy ____. Inflation.

[2112]

MidtownCoog, on Monday, November 14th, 2005 @ 11:13am, said:

Back in the day, most people worked in a thing called an "office".

Today, everybody is in cube-farms. Much more people per floor today than was planned in 1976.

My building is a prime example. We ripped out 25 offices, and added 25 rows of cubes with six people per row.

150 people vs. 25. And this is not unique to my building.

Man, I hope the higher density of people was taken into account by the civil engineers of those skyscrapers. Lets see, 6 times more people per floor...Thats, mabye 200lbs times 6 equals 1,200lbs per floor, and taking a 50 story building is 60,000lbs more than originally expected...

I once heard there was a univeristy...somewhere here in Texas....where they built a new library but forgot to take the weight of the books into account...and the building has been slowly sinking into the ground since!!!

[mls1202]

2112, on Monday, November 21st, 2005 @ 10:50am, said:

Man, I hope the higher density of people was taken into account by the civil engineers of those skyscrapers. Lets see, 6 times more people per floor...Thats, mabye 200lbs times 6 equals 1,200lbs per floor, and taking a 50 story building is 60,000lbs more than originally expected...

I once heard there was a univeristy...somewhere here in Texas....where they built a new library but forgot to take the weight of the books into account...and the building has been slowly sinking into the ground since!!!

That would be Evans Library at Texas A&M. Actually, the building was supposed to be 2 stories taller than it is today. The change to remove the top 2 floors was due to not counting the weight of the books. However, I don't believe the building is sinking. I got this from the tour guide during my freshman year there in 94.

[ToolMan]

Aggies aint too bright.

[2112]

Oh, it was A&M. Now it all makes sense.

2112, on Monday, November 21st, 2005 @ 4:09pm, said:

Oh, it was A&M. Now it all makes sense.

Sorry to all you aggies out there...I couldnt resist!

[Subdude]

A building permit has been issued for the parking garage site preparation and foundation. Woo Hoo! Another parking garage for downtown!

Just what we need.

[Houstonian in Iraq]

Subdude, on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 @ 1:38pm, said:

A building permit has been issued for the parking garage site preparation and foundation. Woo Hoo! Another parking garage for downtown!

Just what we need.

Better than a surface lot

[DJ V Lawrence]

Houstonian in Iraq, on Saturday, March 4th, 2006 @ 8:51pm, said:

Better than a surface lot

I agree.

[Subdude]

Well, yeah, it's better than a surface lot. It's better than an open sewer, too, but that doesn't mean it's the best use of the space, especially what could be a prime spot on Main. It's not like surface lots are the default state of downtown land to which all other uses should be compared. We could set the bar a little higher than that.

[skwatra]

are there still plans for ground floor retail on the Main St side of this garage?

[largeTEXAS]

Yes, there will be retail there and supposedly the design will be worthy of acclaim. Hines is developing the garage so it should be at least halfway decent.

[Montrose1100]

[Subdude]

Quote

Yes, there will be retail there and supposedly the design will be worthy of acclaim. Hines is developing the garage so it should be at least halfway decent.

I haven't made it downtown for a while now, but this should be well under construction. Updates on this? What's the verdict? Is it "architecturally significant"?

[WesternGulf]

To early to tell. Construction has barely made it out the tunnel.

[MidtownCoog]

Quote

Updates on this?

It's about 3.5 levels up above street level. They have been working round-the-clock.

There's a great view of the activity from the 1100 McKinney garage. I'll try to snap a picture.

[houstonfella]

This parking garage is interesting. Because at the time, Pennzoil Tower was not close to being nearly 90 per cent leased. I guess a little planning goes a long way because Pennzoil Tower is almost totally leased at this writing. I would be interested in seeing how they are going to make a parking garage pretty. Haven't seen any renderings on this one. Tunnel connected will be great though.

[Subdude]

houstonfella, on Tuesday, December 26th, 2006 @ 12:47pm, said:

This parking garage is interesting. Because at the time, Pennzoil Tower was not close to being nearly 90 per cent leased. I guess a little planning goes a long way because Pennzoil Tower is almost totally leased at this writing. I would be interested in seeing how they are going to make a parking garage pretty. Haven't seen any renderings on this one. Tunnel connected will be great though.

Leasing at Pennzoil is probably more attibutable to a strong local economy than this.

I haven't been downtown for a long time. So is this "architecturally significant" parking garage completed, or nearly so? Is it truly "architecturally significant" as Hines promised?

[ricco67]

I don't know if it is or not, but it seems like it's taking forever for a simple garage, though.

It's a pain crossing main at that intersection.

[bach]

Subdude, on Sunday, April 1st, 2007 @ 8:54am, said:

Leasing at Pennzoil is probably more attibutable to a strong local economy than this.

I haven't been downtown for a long time. So is this "architecturally significant" parking garage completed, or nearly so? Is it truly "architecturally significant" as Hines promised?

The parking garage isn't finished -- I don't think they've topped out.
It's a Hines garage being built for Sunbelt, the owner of Pennzoil and the parking lot in front of 1 Shell and 2 Shell. Hines never released renderings of the garage, but it was supposed to be sleek, and one of those garages that typically gets written up in Cite. Just like the Catholic Co-Cathedral, it has been value-engineered, and they're going in the direction of not including a skin -- just the metal cables going across, with maybe 3' of coverage on each floor. Ouch. Ugly buildings aren't illegal, unfortunately.

[bach]

Hines had their topping out ceremony last Thursday, May 3.
No tree on top, though.

[violet]

How many of you actually thought that the Hines-developed parking garage would truly be "architecturally significant?" Well, the garage is complete...and it looks and smells like a parking garage! Complete w/ tons of concrete and parallel wiring (ooh, ahh!). What a slap in the face for the residents and visitors of Downtown Houston! The Hines corp. completely swindled the public into believing that a beautiful structure (initially told to be a 11-story building, that is really a 14 story mammoth) would be a built on the same site as a 95 year old historic building. I am here to say that it is an extravagant eyesore that expands from Travis to Main (ironically, grossly overshadowing the light rail) and right on Walker. There is no skin on it, and so sits a concrete skeletal nightmare.

Not only is this grotesque structure visually nauseating, it also is a seizure-inducing brightly-lit nightmare! The structure is fleshed out with intensely BRIGHT floodlights on each of its 14 floors, including the roof, that release their ungodly glow (24/7) without obstruction into the living and bedroom units of the Commerce Towers Condominiums! Despite complaints and frustrations by its residents, Hines and its supposed foreign financier refuse to place a skin on this thing as it was initially proposed. If you look along the Main Street corridor at night, you can see muted, soft lighting on most of the buildings (pleasing to the eye). Not so with this sorry excuse for existence!

I myself am a resident of Commerce. I bought my unit just for the spectacular views of the Esperson buildings, and the Chase (spire) buildings. I live just above this pathetic excuse of development, and the beautiful soft glows and contours of these historic buildings, are now completely washed out by the unobstructed lights of this garage. The blinding lights of the garage stream miserably into my unit, and my current window treatments do a miserable job in snuffing out this crazy light. I feel sorry for those below me, as i've heard that the headlights of the cars, when turned on, shoot straight and hot into the units' windows below.

That this abysmal piece of concrete even attempts to outshine these beautiful architectural masterpieces of Houston's history (the Espersons, Commerce Towers, and Chase (Spire) Buildings). Such hubris is an example of greed and deceipt at its worst. This is a slap in the face not only to Downtown residents but to Houstonians and city visitors.

How can the Downtown District even hope to draw potential residents when their livelihood and properties are thrown aside for the corporate evil.

[TheNiche]

violet, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 5:17pm, said:

How many of you actually thought that the Hines-developed parking garage would truly be "architecturally significant?" Well, the garage is complete...and it looks and smells like a parking garage! Complete w/ tons of concrete and parallel wiring (ooh, ahh!). What a slap in the face for the residents and visitors of Downtown Houston! The Hines corp. completely swindled the public into believing that a beautiful structure (initially told to be a 11-story building, that is really a 14 story mammoth) would be a built on the same site as a 95 year old historic building. I am here to say that it is an extravagant eyesore that expands from Travis to Main (ironically, grossly overshadowing the light rail) and right on Walker. There is no skin on it, and so sits a concrete skeletal nightmare.

Not only is this grotesque structure visually nauseating, it also is a seizure-inducing brightly-lit nightmare! The structure is fleshed out with intensely BRIGHT floodlights on each of its 14 floors, including the roof, that release their ungodly glow (24/7) without obstruction into the living and bedroom units of the Commerce Towers Condominiums! Despite complaints and frustrations by its residents, Hines and its supposed foreign financier refuse to place a skin on this thing as it was initially proposed. If you look along the Main Street corridor at night, you can see muted, soft lighting on most of the buildings (pleasing to the eye). Not so with this sorry excuse for existence!

I myself am a resident of Commerce. I bought my unit just for the spectacular views of the Esperson buildings, and the Chase (spire) buildings. I live just above this pathetic excuse of development, and the beautiful soft glows and contours of these historic buildings, are now completely washed out by the unobstructed lights of this garage. The blinding lights of the garage stream miserably into my unit, and my current window treatments do a miserable job in snuffing out this crazy light. I feel sorry for those below me, as i've heard that the headlights of the cars, when turned on, shoot straight and hot into the units' windows below.

That this abysmal piece of concrete even attempts to outshine these beautiful architectural masterpieces of Houston's history (the Espersons, Commerce Towers, and Chase (Spire) Buildings). Such hubris is an example of greed and deceipt at its worst. This is a slap in the face not only to Downtown residents but to Houstonians and city visitors.

How can the Downtown District even hope to draw potential residents when their livelihood and properties are thrown aside for the corporate evil.

Can you provide photos?

Perhaps your condo association could contact them about the matter or a letter-writing campaign could be organized. I don't imagine that it'd be too difficult to modify the garage by adding some form of a shading system or another that would shield you from direct line-of-sight exposure to the glow or to headlights. Ultimately, your association might have to chip in to get modifications done if they're possible, but it it's worth that much to you...

Oh, and you might want to tone down the rhetoric. Companies take people that sound serious in a serious way, and "corporate evil" isn't the kind of accusatory phrase that would compel me to give a **** about you if I were them.

[Jax]

I had the same thought last weekend when I walked by it - wasn't this place supposed to be architecturally significant? It looks like crap. AT LEAST there's street level retail. I wonder if that will turn into anything nice or just stay abandoned. I know that doesn't solve your problems but at least there's something slightly positive about it.

Is it completely finished now? It looked like they were still doing some work last weekend, but I could be wrong.

I took some photos of it last weekend that I was thinking of posting, but I couldn't find the thread right away and they looked so damn ugly I think I deleted them.

This post has been edited by Jax: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 5:45 PM

[Subdude]

Well I get a big "I told you so" on this one. I was dubious about Hines commitment to "architecturally significant" parking from the start. It was just some PR garbage they threw out to justify tearing down a century-old building on Main Street.

Quote

Oh, and you might want to tone down the rhetoric. Companies take people that sound serious in a serious way, and "corporate evil" isn't the kind of accusatory phrase that would compel me to give a **** about you if I were them.

Hines couldn't care less about any of our opinions here. What, are we supposed to worry about hurting their feelings? If she can't vent here, where can she?

[sevfiv]

Downtown got swindled on this one.

and the rhetoric could be toned down to attempt to suck up to someone, but ultimately Hines probably wouldn't give a *** either way. If the company did, we wouldn't have this crappy end result in the first place.

This post has been edited by sevfiv: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 6:19 PM

[RedScare]

TheNiche, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 5:41pm, said:

Oh, and you might want to tone down the rhetoric. Companies take people that sound serious in a serious way, and "corporate evil" isn't the kind of accusatory phrase that would compel me to give a **** about you if I were them.

Oh, violet, please do not make disparaging remarks about developers. Developers are messengers, sent by God himself, to make your life complete, without interference from Lucifer, also known as the government. To disparage a developer is to smite God Almighty.

Besides, as a mere downtown resident, what do you know about "architecturally significant" parking garages anyway? Why, if you only knew the joys of value engineered structures, you would marvel at this edifice. I am quite sure that the developers of this building, after a careful cost benefit analysis, only made as much profit as they needed. In fact, with knowledge gleaned from a class I took in college, I have calculated that a butt-ugly parking garage is the highest and best use of this block of Main Street.

You should send a letter of thanks to Mr. Hines, not indignation.

[TheNiche]

Subdude, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 5:52pm, said:

Hines couldn't care less about any of our opinions here. What, are we supposed to worry about hurting their feelings? If she can't vent here, where can she?

I don't think my comments were fully understood. My suggestion is to try to work things out in a constructive manner, and at the most fundamental level, I can assure everyone that nothing will happen without at least feigned respect. If it becomes a PR hubub with lots of whiny citizens complaining about bad design, then Hines will get themselves in a position where they can't do anything without signaling defeat. As a business that is B2B-oriented, that's not the face that they'd like to put forward. More likely, that a few whiny self-interested folks worried about the view from their condos start spouting a bunch of rhetorically-loaded crap at them is just going to convince them that it isn't a matter that they should bother with. If let your dog out in the yard to do his business and he poops on the neighbor's yard in plain sight of the neighbor, and the neighbor calls you a [fill in the blank], then are you more likely to make your dog use a litter box inside or are you just going to be more careful to make sure that the neighbor isn't outside when you let the dog out to do his business? What if the neighbor asked you politely, perhaps even with good humor, to please keep your dog in your own yard? I can tell you which approach I'd respond to...

And I'm not telling her that she can't vent. I don't know where you got that idea. Hell, I want her to post images to see just how bad it is and I then offered a serious suggestion on how the problem might be remedied. Jeez man, what's yours and Red's beef?

[violet]

I guess I should retract my foul language (?) and the use of the term "corporate evil." Although, how else would you describe a corporation that slides into the City of Houston permit and planning meetings w/ a killer plan and slick marketing, and then pull the rug out from under everyone's feet (including all various Downtown Planning associations and Downtown District) and lastly the residents of downtown, and when they're doing the minimum tell everyone "Psych!"

We have separately written formal letters, and our residential building manager and developer have had formal meetings with Hines and offered incentives to have the skin placed, the various Downtown Associations that were created to prevent this kind of thing from happening have pleaded with Hines to do something....no dice. We are now planning a major, collective effort that, if effective, will hopefully secure the rest of downtown's residents from having their livelihood and properties completely compromised by the very obvious short-sightedness of a few individuals. This structure will be there for decades to come. These are our homes, bottom line. This is where we live. I think any one would fight tooth and nail to secure our right for this.

Furthermore, we do not live in a black-out society. It is not enough to tell us that we should get black-out shades. Again, if there are any hopes of drawing future residents into downtown to thrive and flourish, they need to be protected from this type of event.

I regret that I can not put my photos on at this time, but hopefully some of the other folks in the building can oblige. In the meantime, just close your eyes and picture......a giant parking garage. No more, no less.

[RedScare]

The "beef", as it were, is this:

Back in November 2005, Hines sent Nancy Sarnof one of those bragadocious press releases, trumpeting their new parking garage. No one forced them to type up and send out this self-serving garbage...it is what developers do. In the process of bragging about their new garage, Hines...unsolicited...stated that the garage would be "architecurally significant". In other words, they KNEW putting a garage on Main Street was a sensitive issue, and they attempted to defuse the situation by claiming they would make it fit in. Ms. Sarnov dutifully reported the contents of the press release.

Hines then proceed to build your everyday, run-of-the-mill DUMP of a parking garage. In other words, THEY LIED. Now that we see that not only is it not significant, but the missing skin that was promised negatively affects owners of adjacent property, you suggest that they would be easily swayed by a nice letter, or better yet, they should offer to pay for the skin themselves. All this, AFTER Hines promised to do this in the first place.

If Hines were a government, you'd be up in arms. Since they are a developer, they must be great guys. My "beef" is that Hines should deliver what they promised. If not, then their reneging on promises should be published where others can see it....like maybe on an architecture forum. Better yet, since there are likely a Hines employee or two who read this forum, maybe they'll get word to Clark Davis, VP of Hines, to come on the forum and explain what is "architecturally significant" about the garage. I'd love to hear it.



On a brighter note, apparently it is connected to the tunnels, so you won't muss your hair.

[KinkaidAlum]

Violet-

That totally sucks for you and the other residents at Commerce Towers. Hines has really let his "home" city down. Back in 2003 when I thought I might be moving back home, I toured the C.T. project and FELL IN LOVE with the views and the building. I was told at the time about the "architectural garage" and "upscale retail" that was going to replace the old San Jac building. I would be PISSED if it wasn't delivered. I hope you give them hell and cause a bunch of trouble. It's amazing that this garage was built for the Pennzoil Towers too. What a slap in the face to those beauties. At least the office workers wont have to look at it since it's 2 blocks away!

Red-

LOL.

[nmainguy]

violet, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 7:56pm, said:

I guess I should retract my foul language (?) and the use of the term "corporate evil." Although, how else would you describe a corporation that slides into the City of Houston permit and planning meetings w/ a killer plan and slick marketing, and then pull the rug out from under everyone's feet (including all various Downtown Planning associations and Downtown District) and lastly the residents of downtown, and when they're doing the minimum tell everyone "Psych!"

We have separately written formal letters, and our residential building manager and developer have had formal meetings with Hines and offered incentives to have the skin placed, the various Downtown Associations that were created to prevent this kind of thing from happening have pleaded with Hines to do something....no dice. We are now planning a major, collective effort that, if effective, will hopefully secure the rest of downtown's residents from having their livelihood and properties completely compromised by the very obvious short-sightedness of a few individuals. This structure will be there for decades to come. These are our homes, bottom line. This is where we live. I think any one would fight tooth and nail to secure our right for this.

Furthermore, we do not live in a black-out society. It is not enough to tell us that we should get black-out shades. Again, if there are any hopes of drawing future residents into downtown to thrive and flourish, they need to be protected from this type of event.

I regret that I can not put my photos on at this time, but hopefully some of the other folks in the building can oblige. In the meantime, just close your eyes and picture......a giant parking garage. No more, no less.

You don't need to post any photos. Most people here have seen the damage done by a corporation that used to live up to it's word and take risks that have proven to be wildly successful [Pennzoil; Galeria] while others who seem to be too feeble to get out and take a look are probably content that the cheap and tawdry prevails. It's also a shame you feel the need to offer incentives to a corporation that lied their way through the process.

[H-Town Man]

violet, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 5:17pm, said:

I myself am a resident of Commerce. I bought my unit just for the spectacular views of the Esperson buildings, and the Chase (spire) buildings. I live just above this pathetic excuse of development, and the beautiful soft glows and contours of these historic buildings, are now completely washed out by the unobstructed lights of this garage. The blinding lights of the garage stream miserably into my unit, and my current window treatments do a miserable job in snuffing out this crazy light. I feel sorry for those below me, as i've heard that the headlights of the cars, when turned on, shoot straight and hot into the units' windows below.

That this abysmal piece of concrete even attempts to outshine these beautiful architectural masterpieces of Houston's history (the Espersons, Commerce Towers, and Chase (Spire) Buildings). Such hubris is an example of greed and deceipt at its worst. This is a slap in the face not only to Downtown residents but to Houstonians and city visitors.

How can the Downtown District even hope to draw potential residents when their livelihood and properties are thrown aside for the corporate evil.

Ah, but the free market always triumphs! Only the free market can deliver what people want! Any government incursion into the development process is doomed to fail!

[/anti-zoning crowd]

[Subdude]

I rode over this morning to check this out. It is as bad as she says. The garage is about as cheap looking as it could possibly be - nothing but rough concrete slab and retaining wires. Floor after floor of fluorescent lights. Your average self-storage block has more architectural character than this thing. You really have to feel for the neighbors looking out on this.

[Jax]

Are we sure it's complete and they're not going to add a facade of any type? It just really looks unfinished. Maybe they wanted to have it operational and then make it look nice? Or am I just dreaming?

[violet]

the last I heard (and this was 2 days ago), was that there was no intention of placing a skin on this structure. This was apparently known months if not years ago. The residents of Commerce have only now realized the gravity of the situation when last week, the lights of the structure were turned and left on around the clock (24/7...for safety issues...even though, it is not officially opened yet). Until then, the residential building was relatively silent about this structure going up, realizing that both business and residential must coexist harmoniously in downtown.

Furthermore, apparently no ties were installed in this structure to allow for a skin (of the initial design) over the garage to ever be placed in the future. If I am wrong, please correct me, but this is coming from the top. What I understand is that the Powers That Be were only looking at the bottom line...cost.

[MidtownCoog]

The Travis side is pretty ugly, too. Some much for street level retail.

[Jax]

What do you mean "Some much for street level retail" ? You mean so much for street retail? There is still retail, isn't there? If there was no retail this would really be the worst thing possible for downtown.

[MidtownCoog]

It's been a couple weeks since I went by, but the Travis side looks too skinny to accomodate anything other than a newspaper stand.

Granted there is a store in the buidling next door. Not sure of the name of that building, but they added a new entrance on the Travis side.

This post has been edited by MidtownCoog: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 10:23 AM

[Jax]

I see... there's still going to be retail on Main right?

[TheNiche]

RedScare, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 8:11pm, said:

The "beef", as it were, is this...

Yeah, ok. What's your beef with me that merited post #83, in which you mocked me? You are actually reading my posts before responding to them, right?

[TheNiche]

violet, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 7:56pm, said:

I guess I should retract my foul language (?) and the use of the term "corporate evil." Although, how else would you describe a corporation that slides into the City of Houston permit and planning meetings w/ a killer plan and slick marketing, and then pull the rug out from under everyone's feet (including all various Downtown Planning associations and Downtown District) and lastly the residents of downtown, and when they're doing the minimum tell everyone "Psych!"

We have separately written formal letters, and our residential building manager and developer have had formal meetings with Hines and offered incentives to have the skin placed, the various Downtown Associations that were created to prevent this kind of thing from happening have pleaded with Hines to do something....no dice. We are now planning a major, collective effort that, if effective, will hopefully secure the rest of downtown's residents from having their livelihood and properties completely compromised by the very obvious short-sightedness of a few individuals. This structure will be there for decades to come. These are our homes, bottom line. This is where we live. I think any one would fight tooth and nail to secure our right for this.

I understand where you're coming from, but problems like these are more easily solved in an environment of mutual respect, even if feigned, than one of bitter conflict. That's the reality of it. And even if you perceive that that environment has already been compromised, it doesn't do much good to sink to their level. Otherwise, when PR becomes an issue, a lot of the public will blow you off as whiny self-interested owners that are no better or worse than those that you oppose. People tend to side with a plain-spoken victim, not a vicious aggressor.

And good call trying to pull folks like the Downtown Management District and Central Houston, Inc. into the fray. Although, to be clear, they were not created to prevent this kind of thing, the Management District does have authority to disburse funds for improvements to private property, and if Hines can be shown to have been dishonest in this project, the Management District may be convinced to be more hesitant to help Hines out in any future projects or in renovations to properties they own. Same thing goes with the City, although they tend to be less involved. That approach may give you some leverage beyond just offering a financial incentive.

Realistically, if an agreement can be reached to remodel the garage, your condo association is likely to end up paying for it. And it may be frustrating, but if it is a matter that is valued highly enough, that's what'll probably end up happening.

violet, on Tuesday, July 10th, 2007 @ 7:56pm, said:

Furthermore, we do not live in a black-out society. It is not enough to tell us that we should get black-out shades. Again, if there are any hopes of drawing future residents into downtown to thrive and flourish, they need to be protected from this type of event.

When I suggested some sort of a shading system, I meant for the parking garage rather than your building. Perhaps a set of louvres, a screen or wire mesh, or interior baffles near the perimeter of each level of the garage to reduce the amount of line-of-sight exposure to the florescents. If not a complete skin, surely there are ways that wouldn't require significant structural modification that the impacts can be mitigated. If they say that it can't physically be done, try to find an architect or building engineer in your building or that one of your neighbors knows that can refute their claim. If you have to, pay someone for an assessment of what can be done and get some estimates on what it'd cost, and take that to the negotiating table.

[violet]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, July 11th, 2007 @ 11:15am, said:

"And good call trying to pull folks like the Downtown Management District and Central Houston, Inc. into the fray."

Actually, the above entities were long involved with this before the residents ever got wind of the final change in plans. This is not just a problem for the neighbors across the street. Unless you're reading only a portion of my statements, you can see that this isn't about a narrow focus ("whiny self-interested group") group. Downtowners are overall a group of active and civic-minded, multi-tasking folk who care about their neighborhood and work, live, and play in this newly rejuvenated area. We care deeply about what is going on and up in the core of downtown and surroundings. This abrupt change in a developer's vision does not bode well for future developments, and leads to cynicism and caution when people decide to visit or move here. One can't help but put emotions into what is now perceived as a distortion of trust.

[TheNiche]

violet, on Wednesday, July 11th, 2007 @ 11:35am, said:

This is not just a problem for the neighbors across the street. Unless you're reading only a portion of my statements, you can see that this isn't about a narrow focus ("whiny self-interested group") group.

I know. I'm just giving you some advice on impact mitigation and PR matters. I really am not trying to be adversarial--just realistic, helpful, and constructive. I'm not saying that the outcome will be utopian because it won't be, and I'm not just going to get all pissy and negative like other members of this forum contributing to this thread because it doesn't accomplish anything.

...I'd hope that folks would appreciate a truth-and-results-oriented approach.

violet, on Wednesday, July 11th, 2007 @ 11:35am, said:

Downtowners are overall a group of active and civic-minded, multi-tasking folk who care about their neighborhood and work, live, and play in this newly rejuvenated area. We care deeply about what is going on and up in the core of downtown and surroundings. This abrupt change in a developer's vision does not bode well for future developments, and leads to cynicism and caution when people decide to visit or move here. One can't help but put emotions into what is now perceived as a distortion of trust.

I understand that, but you might be careful not to speak too loudly, and not only because it puts Hines in a tricky PR position in which they're unlikely to waver. A lot of prospective downtown residents don't understand that in a redeveloping area with plenty of building activity, what they know today may change tomorrow. Cherished views may be blocked, creating better views for new residents and worse views for established residents, with commensurate changes in property values. And likewise, freakish situations like this one may arise. The truth is that zoning or building codes typically can't cure ugliness and that you shouldn't expect the City to significantly change anything to accomodate a single neighborhood like downtown. It's not impossible, but it's very unlikely. Barring a regulatory approach, about the last thing that you should want to do is publicize that this kind of thing can happen, which could scare off investors in downtown apartments and prospective owners of downtown condominiums and stunt growth. The best possible outcome is a quiet one between involved parties.

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 11:59 AM