[musicman]

lockmat, on Sunday, May 25th, 2008 @ 7:51pm, said:

Stitched 'em up...

I believe this is gonna be one place where people will walk around and think, "I'm not in Kansas anymore." I think it's gonna feel real homey(sp?).

the overview post in 207 sure doesn't look like these pics. are these just representative of the types of buildings? some of the public areas look large compared to the 207 renderings.

This post has been edited by musicman: Sunday, May 25, 2008 at 11:23 PM

[KinkaidAlum]

Actually, it doesn't really look like Boston at all. There are no Victorian Bowfronts (South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill). There are no triple deckers (Dorchester, JP, Mattapan). There are no single family homes (West Roxbury, JP). There are no highrises (Back Bay, Financial Center, Fort Point, Longwood).

However, the scale is similar to much of Boston. Walkable and dense without being overwhelming (like Manhattan can be).

[UrbaNerd]

TheNiche, on Sunday, May 25th, 2008 @ 10:13pm, said:

Examples of recent buildings/renderings that I like: Memorial Hermann Medical Plaza, Mosaic, and nearly anything developed by Hines (including their parking garage on Main).

Older product that I like is all over the place in Houston. Our boomtimes were in a good moment of architectural histroy, IMO, and I'm thankful that we don't have all the cheesy spires of Atlanta. I'm not even sure where to start, except to say that from time to time, an angle of a building that I've seen a hundred times will pop out at me as being just magnificent...large buildings and small buildings alike.

So essentially, you prefer things without excessive architectural embellishments; more of function over form. I agree that a lot of the towers from our boomtimes are quite timeless in their architectural being, since they lack the elements that date a structure. How about some of the other things going up in the TMC? One in particular I was wondering about is the recently built UT School Of Nursing, designed by Lake Flato. Of course, there are also obvious attempts to stamp neoclassical elements on new structures (MD Anderson Ambulatory), but of course, Postmodernism qualifies as a real style in itself (which is why some consider it a paradox). Then again, some people enjoy living in a paradox and a parody of what real life is supposed to be.

So, if you were to design such a "redevelopment/development", what would it look like? What exactly is "real" to you, anyway (besides function over form)? What would the materials/forms and such be?

[TheNiche]

UrbaNerd, on Monday, May 26th, 2008 @ 12:48am, said:

So essentially, you prefer things without excessive architectural embellishments; more of function over form. I agree that a lot of the towers from our boomtimes are quite timeless in their architectural being, since they lack the elements that date a structure. How about some of the other things going up in the TMC? One in particular I was wondering about is the recently built UT School Of Nursing, designed by Lake Flato. Of course, there are also obvious attempts to stamp neoclassical elements on new structures (MD Anderson Ambulatory), but of course, Postmodernism qualifies as a real style in itself (which is why some consider it a paradox). Then again, some people enjoy living in a paradox and a parody of what real life is supposed to be.

I've toured the School of Nursing, and the aspects that interested me most were mechanical and structural; for instance floor-vented HVAC, the sunshades, and the fly ash concrete stairwells. Items such as the use of recycled bricks and lumber from local sources were done to get a point towards LEED certification, so they're forgiven because they had a goal that had to be met...otherwise, I'd be perplexed at them. And aesthetically, the building really does come across as a bit confused, as seems to be a post-modern trademark...and if I ever bothered to connect architecture and philosophy, I might actually object to a confused School of Nursing.

But I don't bother to connect the two, or to derive meaning. I simply know what I like when I see it, whether in person or in the mind's eye.

UrbaNerd, on Monday, May 26th, 2008 @ 12:48am, said:

So, if you were to design such a "redevelopment/development", what would it look like? What exactly is "real" to you, anyway (besides function over form)? What would the materials/forms and such be?

Well as it happens, I have had input into the design elements of various developments, but with few exceptions, the idea was not to stray too far from the norm, to end up with something that lenders wouldn't object to, that is tried and true, and that will be accepted by more than just the design elite of the population. Mediocrity is no accident and innovation is incremental.

But market performance aside, "real" is IMO foremostly functional and secondarily delightful. In my own view, structural strength (survivability) is the most critical part of function. Security is second on the list. Basically, follow Maslow's pyramid from the bottom up. Delight is site-specific. I cannot specify a general rule because none applies.

[roadrunner]

KinkaidAlum, on Sunday, May 25th, 2008 @ 11:31pm, said:

Actually, it doesn't really look like Boston at all. There are no Victorian Bowfronts (South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill). There are no triple deckers (Dorchester, JP, Mattapan). There are no single family homes (West Roxbury, JP). There are no highrises (Back Bay, Financial Center, Fort Point, Longwood).

However, the scale is similar to much of Boston. Walkable and dense without being overwhelming (like Manhattan can be).

That's really what I meant. Nothing specifically in Boston, but the style and midrise density.

[lockmat]

[swtsig]

this is easily my favorite project in our fair city.

[The Great Hizzy!]

It certainly seems to be the most ambitious. Sort of like Hardy Yard, except a bit further out and without the need for hazardous site abatement and that sort of thing.

[KinkaidAlum]

Wow. I had no idea they were planning on building tall. The print at swamplot says a first tower on West Dallas will be 22 stories tall. From all the images I have seen, it seemed as if the tallest would be about 10 floors above ground.

This thing is going to be huge.

[lockmat]

KinkaidAlum, on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 @ 3:16pm, said:

Wow. I had no idea they were planning on building tall. The print at swamplot says a first tower on West Dallas will be 22 stories tall. From all the images I have seen, it seemed as if the tallest would be about 10 floors above ground.

This thing is going to be huge.

I don't get the feeling it's all fabricated either, like people will be living in The Truman Show. I think it'll feel very natural, even in Houston.

If you take a look at the tall picture, look at the building on the bottom right, I think on Allen Pkwy. That building looks pretty tall.

[RedScare]

So, has anyone figured out exactly where the diagonal street connects to W Gray? Is it at the dead end west of Kroger?

EDIT: Nevermind. It doesn't connect to Gray at all. It connects to W CLAY.


Sorry.

This post has been edited by RedScare: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM

[Triton]

lockmat, on Tuesday, May 27th, 2008 @ 3:48pm, said:

I don't get the feeling it's all fabricated either, like people will be living in The Truman Show. I think it'll feel very natural, even in Houston.

If you take a look at the tall picture, look at the building on the bottom right, I think on Allen Pkwy. That building looks pretty tall.

You're right. It does look tall:

<<<<<<

[Subdude]

Quote

Also mentioned further down the road would be a stoplight at Allen Pkwy & Dunlavy

I can see where they would need some traffic control there. Couldn't it be a roundabout?

[musicman]

Subdude, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 12:02am, said:

I can see where they would need some traffic control there. Couldn't it be a roundabout?

the ROW required would probably be too large.

[TheNiche]

Subdude, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 12:02am, said:

I can see where they would need some traffic control there. Couldn't it be a roundabout?

GOOD GOD, NO! Those things are wasteful of land, aren't pedestrian-friendly, and raise my blood pressure.

[Trae]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 5:05pm, said:

GOOD GOD, NO! Those things are wasteful of land, aren't pedestrian-friendly, and raise my blood pressure.

"Please God, let there me more roundabouts in the Houston area. Preferable, on the street that theNiche lives on. In this your name I pray. Amen."

[TheNiche]

Trae, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 6:13pm, said:

"Please God, let there me more roundabouts in the Houston area. Preferable, on the street that theNiche lives on. In this your name I pray. Amen."

That's very childish, Trae.

[Trae]

Was just playing. Don't wish any harm on you Niche. I thought the blood pressure on the roundabout part was a joke made by you. Guess not .

This post has been edited by Trae: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 8:03 PM

[crunchtastic]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 5:05pm, said:

GOOD GOD, NO! Those things are wasteful of land, aren't pedestrian-friendly, and raise my blood pressure.

Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament!

Niche is right. Traffic circles and people are generally a bad mix. For sheer terror, some of the ones in Italy I've come across (especially Rome) don't even have lanes. Good times. Ciao.

They must have made sense when they were built, in old cities with odd angled intersections, streets not on a grid pattern, etc. However, a roundabout at Allen Pkwy and Dunlavy would be more suicidal than the Allen Parkway ramps to the Pierce Elevated, if that's even possible. People fly through there, there's little frontage, like Musicman said, a major cross street and bridge a few hundred feet away.

I guess the only thing would be a full stop and dedicated left turn lanes. You could leave it alone, but with the added congestion, it would back up past the Waugh exit too much, stacking people on Dunlavy waiting to turn east. Where Dunlavy meets AP, you can hard right to the Waugh exit lane, or you can swing out to catch Allen Parwkay. Of course you have all the people veering into the Waugh exit lane at 60 mph, after cresting a slight hill and turn. It's crazy already at that intersection.

[20thStDad]

I haven't found it that hard to turn east on Allen Pkwy from Dunlavy, the light down at Shepherd creates good enough gaps. You just have to book it sometimes. The left turn from Allen-west to Dunlavy has a short lane right now, mainly because there's a left turn right before that. Perhaps those 2 turn lanes could be joined up for a longer lane. As long as they keep it no left turn onto Allen I think that will work fine. It's too close to the Waugh underpass to do much else I think. I doubt widening the ROW is an option because even if they wanted to cut into the hike/bike trail area, there's a cemetary right across from Dunlavy.

[Spades]

roadrunner, on Sunday, May 25th, 2008 @ 6:56pm, said:

Reminds me of Boston. Very cool.

And I'm impressed that they really didn't scale back the scope. This could be fantastic.

It looking like Boston does not seem to impress the bloggers on this link.
http://swamplot.com/the-new-regent-square-...5-27/#more-2097

[crunchtastic]

20thStDad, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 9:19pm, said:

The left turn from Allen-west to Dunlavy has a short lane right now, mainly because there's a left turn right before that. Perhaps those 2 turn lanes could be joined up for a longer lane.

That's a good idea.

The ROW really can't accomodate anything else, and with the Waugh bridge there....maybe Waugh itself could be widened, before the bridge. There's room to work with on the south side, assuming it's done now, rather than later.

[NewMND]

Spades, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 9:55pm, said:

It looking like Boston does not seem to impress the bloggers on this link.
http://swamplot.com/the-new-regent-square-...5-27/#more-2097

I agree with their points about the lack of awnings and what not to protect pedestrians from some of the elements.

[capnmcbarnacle]

NewMND, on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 @ 6:24am, said:

I agree with their points about the lack of awnings and what not to protect pedestrians from some of the elements.

One thing that those renderings show, that you didn't see along the city sidewalks of Texas one hundred years ago, is trees. I don't think you can build out over the sidewalk a la The Strand in Galveston and still have trees planted along the sidwalk.

I find it interesting that the Swamplot people are moaning about the pre-fab look of the place. I don't see it. In fact, I think dressing this thing up as a mock 1910 Texas town would be he worst thing they could do. It's natural for people to compare this to other places they've seen, but I can't really think of any other development that looks this way. It doesn't look master planned to me - it looks more natural. The developers have the luxury of taking large parcels that were made up of numerous blocks many years ago, and returning them to something resembling the original grid that was there. It fits in. As someone who lives on Dunlavy, am I psyched that my traffic-free trip to and from downton will end? No. But as a resident of the area I'm excited to see these guys do something this ambitious with that piece of property.

[capnmcbarnacle]

There was an interesting article in the Chron about the cemetary next door to Regent Square and the developers contributions to getting it cleaned up.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/hei...ws/5806719.html

[AJB857]

crunchtastic, on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 @ 8:58pm, said:

Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament!

Niche is right. Traffic circles and people are generally a bad mix. For sheer terror, some of the ones in Italy I've come across (especially Rome) don't even have lanes. Good times. Ciao.

They must have made sense when they were built, in old cities with odd angled intersections, streets not on a grid pattern, etc. However, a roundabout at Allen Pkwy and Dunlavy would be more suicidal than the Allen Parkway ramps to the Pierce Elevated, if that's even possible. People fly through there, there's little frontage, like Musicman said, a major cross street and bridge a few hundred feet away.

I guess the only thing would be a full stop and dedicated left turn lanes. You could leave it alone, but with the added congestion, it would back up past the Waugh exit too much, stacking people on Dunlavy waiting to turn east. Where Dunlavy meets AP, you can hard right to the Waugh exit lane, or you can swing out to catch Allen Parwkay. Of course you have all the people veering into the Waugh exit lane at 60 mph, after cresting a slight hill and turn. It's crazy already at that intersection.

The city needs to repave Allen Parkway with concrete. Once it starts raining, the asphalt patches combined with the curves creates the most dangerous driving conditions in the city. It's like an ice rink. I once threw my car into a violent spin of 360's, slamming into the curb then coming to a stop facing traffic the wrong way in front of the Bel Air. The construction guys who ran over to my car told me it happens all the time. In one spot closer to Dunlavy, the city cut grooves into the asphalt because it is so dangerous. All of the additional traffic this project (and West Ave) will bring onto Allen Parkway will just make it worse.

They definitely need a light to assist westbound traffic on Allen Parkway turning south onto Dunlavy It's a short turn lane and the traffic often backs up onto the left lane on Allen Parkway. Cars coming around the turn don't have a lot of notice that traffic may be completely stopped in front of them

If any of you have any influence with the city, repaving Allen Parkway and installing a light at Dunlavy should be a very high priority

This post has been edited by AJB857: Saturday, July 5, 2008 at 12:32 PM

[kjb434]

Accidents don't happen on the parkway because it's dangerous, it happens because idiots are speeding.

The turn lane at Dunlavy should be closed down there it removes the danger.

[Trae]

I drove on Allen Parkway when I was going to the Rockets game back in March. It's easy to drive on.

[20thStDad]

The lanes are narrow, and speeding on a wet road that is an older asphalt is never a good idea.

They can't get rid of the Dunlavy turn lane, and they are only going to need it more once all of this gets built. I still haven't seen anywhere in the design that proposes any changes to the current set up, has something new come out maybe? They could always dig it and make it a double underpass to Dunlavy, with easy service road type access just continuing from the Waugh intersection. Someone needs to figure that out, otherwise it'll just end up less safe than now.

Has anyone see visible progress? It's been a couple weeks since I drove by but it looked like nothing but cleared spaces. Are they waiting on something?

[roadrunner]

20thStDad, on Monday, July 7th, 2008 @ 12:26pm, said:

The lanes are narrow, and speeding on a wet road that is an older asphalt is never a good idea.

They can't get rid of the Dunlavy turn lane, and they are only going to need it more once all of this gets built. I still haven't seen anywhere in the design that proposes any changes to the current set up, has something new come out maybe? They could always dig it and make it a double underpass to Dunlavy, with easy service road type access just continuing from the Waugh intersection. Someone needs to figure that out, otherwise it'll just end up less safe than now.

Has anyone see visible progress? It's been a couple weeks since I drove by but it looked like nothing but cleared spaces. Are they waiting on something?

The latest news said land clearing in September and construction in October. So cross your fingers for groundbreaking to actually happen before year end.

[The Great Hizzy!]

20thStDad, on Monday, July 7th, 2008 @ 12:26pm, said:

The lanes are narrow, and speeding on a wet road that is an older asphalt is never a good idea.

They can't get rid of the Dunlavy turn lane, and they are only going to need it more once all of this gets built. I still haven't seen anywhere in the design that proposes any changes to the current set up, has something new come out maybe? They could always dig it and make it a double underpass to Dunlavy, with easy service road type access just continuing from the Waugh intersection. Someone needs to figure that out, otherwise it'll just end up less safe than now.

Has anyone see visible progress? It's been a couple weeks since I drove by but it looked like nothing but cleared spaces. Are they waiting on something?

I do agree that the lanes are a bit narrow but nothing as extreme as what's on Westheimer. And while they're repaving
Allen Parkway, they can do the same for Memorial.

[ChannelTwoNews]

Looks like CBRE has updated a page for leasing space to include the rendering below...

[lockmat]

dude, you're of the heezy. Is there an option to subsribe to your posts?

Looks like that tower is close to 30 stories, doesn't it?

edit: also...this doesn't look too bad, yah?...

$26.00 SF/Year
1/1/2010 Office Building

This post has been edited by lockmat: Monday, July 14, 2008 at 12:16 PM

[The Great Hizzy!]

I've been impressed with most of the images of Recent Square I've come across. The mid-rise buildings look very attractive along with the sidewalks and green spaces. In this last image, the tower is obviously vague, although it seems to suggest that glass will be the primary surface. In this case, the mostly glass surfaces would seem to be out of place with the rest of the project, IMO.

This post has been edited by The Great Hizzy!: Monday, July 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM

[swtsig]

excellent find C2N. that is definitely a good-sized building... that's the proposed condo, no?

[KinkaidAlum]

That is a nice looking project. A nice step up from the old Allen House. Here's to hoping some of the unique Houston places that Weingarten chased off can land here...

[RedScare]

ChannelTwoNews, on Monday, July 14th, 2008 @ 11:59am, said:

Looks like CBRE has updated a page for leasing space to include the rendering below...

Can't you just picture the cast of 'Friends' sitting on an old couch in that square?

[crunchtastic]

RedScare, on Monday, July 14th, 2008 @ 6:53pm, said:

Can't you just picture the cast of 'Friends' sitting on an old couch in that square?

No, but I can imagine vagrants trying to grab a shower in the fountain.

[RedScare]

crunchtastic, on Monday, July 14th, 2008 @ 10:04pm, said:

No, but I can imagine vagrants trying to grab a shower in the fountain.

At least Midtown residents would be glad they moved on.

[kjb434]

I'm guessing some of you may have looked at the swamplot blog. The tall building is not any part of Regent Square.

I'm guessing the architect is also working on a tower design in the area and has it in the same rendering.

The two condo towers for Regent Square are much shorter.

[crunchtastic]

kjb434, on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 @ 11:33am, said:

I'm guessing some of you may have looked at the swamplot blog. The tall building is not any part of Regent Square.

I was wondering about that. To me it looked like the AIG tower.

[lockmat]

This post has been edited by lockmat: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM

[musicman]

lockmat, on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 @ 12:14pm, said:

Did swamplot edit the post? Anyway...here is Gus' evaluation:

who is gus?

[lockmat]

musicman, on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 @ 12:26pm, said:

who is gus?

The guy who runs swamplot

[swtsig]

my not-so-educated guess would be that this ghost-tower is the proposed fingers condo planned in conjunction with the new whole foods off of waugh (perhaps?).

[lockmat]

swtsig, on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 @ 1:55pm, said:

my not-so-educated guess would be that this ghost-tower is the proposed fingers condo planned in conjunction with the new whole foods off of waugh (perhaps?).

It seems as if swamplots assumption of the direction of this view is correct. The viewpoint is from just south of W. Dallas. The condo you're talking of is north of W. Dallas, right? If so, it'd have to be a different tower. Hmmm...

[Highway6]

kjb434, on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 @ 11:33am, said:

I'm guessing the architect is also working on a tower design in the area and has it in the same rendering.

The two condo towers for Regent Square are much shorter.

Doesnt appear likely... while his website is outdated, the architect doesnt seem to do a lot of work in Houston. Most of his Texas work is done in the Metroplex. I didn't see another Houston project.

[capnmcbarnacle]

lockmat, on Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 @ 2:23pm, said:

It seems as if swamplots assumption of the direction of this view is correct. The viewpoint is from just south of W. Dallas. The condo you're talking of is north of W. Dallas, right? If so, it'd have to be a different tower. Hmmm...

That view is to the Southeast and would put it smak in the middle of the Phase II portion of the project. If you look at the most recent Phase II renderings and use your imagination, you can see something with a footprint and orientation that matches the "ghost tower." The plot thickens.

[hysinger]

For those waiting for construction to begin on Regent Square, I came across what I hope is an encouraging sign. On land owned by Regent Square development at the SE corner of W Dallas and Rochow St (about two blocks east of Dunlavy) several (about six) construction offices/trailers have been set up. The number of trailers indicates to me a very sizeable project team. I have to think that this can only be for a development the size of Regent Square.

clh

[Mister X]

^ This is why I love HAIF so much. ^ On sight reporting as it happens. Thank you, hysinger. This sounds very encouraging. HAIF's team of spies are everywhere. The Chronicle was never this on the ball.

Keeping fingers crossed that it is what it looks like it is.