shasta

I'm not sure how accurate this is but I remember the mayor saying something around the time of the initial park land purchase and design process. He said that many developers had expressed interest in nearby lots close to the park (Disco Green)as the city was going through the process of setting a program for and then designing the park. I forgot exactly where I heard this because it was a while back.....but think about it. Do we know of any lots that were developed DIRECTLY because of the park?.....yes... One Park Place. Oddly enough, Disco Tower and Embassy Suites are located bordering the park. La Quinta...Minute Maid has been there since 2000 but this property is purchased 4 months before the preview of Disco Green. I don't think this is a coincidence and I will go on to say that I believe that some developers somewhere are thinking of ways to develop lots close to the park because they own them. If only we know what could be in store. Go back and look at the proposed and under construction map of downtown for new projects. There sure is a bunch of activity on that side of downtown but the question remains -When will we get concrete information about City Centre? Either the rendering prematurely leaked onto the web or a developer hired a firm to come up with a scheme to see if it could be feasible. I say whether it happens or not it proves that developers are thinking of ways to develop downtown Houston which is a good thing. The market will determine how high of a standard it expects.

Does anyone have any more news/information on this project? It's been awfully quiet for a long time.

So it looks like this one will be on the new rail line downtown on Rusk. This is actually a real good location as it located is in the middle of MMP and the Discovery Green / GRB . It should attract visitors attending all 3 of these places. I think the center of downtown (East -West axis book ended by GRB and the Hobby Center) is starting to look like it is going to be pretty dense with this project, disco Green, One Park, Pavilions, Disco Tower, Embassy Suites, Main Place and others to be built along this axis.

Of course I know this (the Partnership) I'm talking about how the city grew and organized itself. They didn't think about the bayou as an asset. Imagine if the city (from the beginning) created a garden bayou district down to the bayou with architectural features and vegetation unique to Houston complete with breezeways, shade, housing, reaturants, retail, recreation, entertainment features mixed with nature that evolved over generations. It would be similar San Antonio but instead of a Spanish theme we would have a more lush bayou/ garden theme. This water feature should have been a great tourist destination and an inviting and unique part of downtown. Case in point to reality I- 45 is built over the bayou instead of utilizing it as a bayou district and the Hobby center intentionally turned its back to the bayou during the design phase. I'm well aware and support the Buffalo Bayou plan. It is going to be difficult for them because 1) like you said they have to raise money and 2) they will be working to try to beautify something that has been abused for generations. I doubt the partnership can 'move the freeway' but I like that they are doing what they can with what is availiable but go back and look at their scheme and imagine the potential if everything was a blank slate. It would be very special and could define our city if it had been done right from the beginning.

It's sad that Houston has what could be have been gem of a waterway in the Buffalo Bayou downtown but didn't know how to or didn't care to design around it. Imagine if they created a bayou garden district around the bayou and actually honored it with unique 'houston' architecture instead of turning their backs on it.

Does anyone have a timeline for when they plan to start construction for this one?

RedScare, why must people here argue everything? The primary point wasn't to compare Chicago vs. Houston it was to point out that Chicago is often thought by a whole bunch of more people to have more elements of an urban landscape and to be a more successful model of a city than Houston. Chicago wasn't perfect either- no city is perfect. They probably have torn down more buildings than Houston but as you said the scale is way bigger there and would you honestly say that modern downtown Chicago is dotted today by so many surface parking lots and a lack of connectivity? Yes, Chicago was fueled early on by eastern money which lead to an accelerated population growth but Houston, before the car, also operated as a somewhat dense unit in Houston terms. I f you want to ignore the city beautification movement that originated in Chicago or even the birth of the modern highrise or the fact that Chicago has zoning controlling growth in its cbd, or the fact that Chicago augmented their public transportation system instead of tearing it out then fine but the point is to express that Houston had some elements of an urban downtown. I dare you to find one person who honestly believes Houston did a better job of preserving its city core than did Chicago because it seems as if Houston has many problems it is trying to correct.

Wow, I never expected this topic to take this turn but it is interesting to see where people stand. No one is calling for Houston to become so urban that it forces someone in Katy to sell their Hummer and move into high density housing instead of their mcmansion. I'm saying Houston should be a city for everyone. If you prefer to be left alone in the suburbs and decide to commute then that should be an option. If you prefer to live in a self-sufficient urban part of the city then that should be an option as well. Houston should be a city for all. I'm not saying Houston was ever super urban but almost everyone forgets what Houston looked like pre World War I and II. Let me paint a picture of what Houston used to be like. The heart of the city was no doubt downtown. Many residents lived downtown and even had the opportunity to walk to Union Station to catch a train to spend an afternoon at the beach in Galveston. A few of the Victorian style houses from downtown have been preserved but many also lived in apartment homes and other buildings in the cbd. Street car lines were abundant all along downtown and the charming "street car suburbs" of Montrose and the Heights would allow downtown workers to live in these suburbs and commute to work. In fact, Rice and the MFA were built so far out of the city that many citizens complained that it was not on the street car line. Downtown Houston had many detail oriented building from the turn of the century. Do a little research to see all of the buildings that were demolished but that we would love to have back today. We even had a "Little Germany" section of downtown and the building of the main German meeting hall today is Cabo's. Capital Square and then Market Square was an integral part of downtown and all citizens would flood downtown to catch the latest movie or play or to attend the famous city festival- the 'Notsuoh' carnival and parade that would march down to the bayou. Everyone had to be downtown to see the opening of the new Macy's on Main back then. These are just some examples. So what makes a city a city- I'd say Culture, History, Memories, and Pride- it's NOT JUST A COLLECTION OF BUILDINGS. This is evident by the city's heart which would be it's center and in most cases where the birth of the city begins. This should be worth saving no matter where you live in the metro. Houston had a good start but chose to destroy and erase all of these elements instead of preserving them. let's compare Houston to Chicago. I'm not saying Chicago is perfect but Houston is actually an older city than Chicago and it was started as a nation's capital city. So what happened? Simply put- Chicago MADE THE CHOICE to preserve and beautify it's city, culture, and charm and Houston MADE THE CHOICE to destroy its city, culture, and charm. Many of the detail oriented buildings of the turn of the century were torn down and the residential population was almost forced to decline. The once mighty Market Square is now flanked by surface parking lots where by contrast Chicago was building pocket parks. The street car line that had been a part of this city in some capacity from 1870-1920 and the commuter rail to galveston was replaced with the new concept of 'freeways'. The German district and the Frost Town districts were all but erased from our memories as if they never existed. Even the charm of the street car suburbs of Montrose and the Heights took a hit to some degree. Inhumane office buildings from the 70's and 80's dazzled at the skyline level but sucked the life of the city at the pedestrian street level. The city even turned its back on our Buffalo bayou the blood line of the city and the single most reason for the location of downtown. They honored this historic water way where early cotton bails would be loaded onto ships by hiding the bayou and building a freeway over it. Would anyone here take pride in bring visitors downtown to show off our historic urban features-downtown residential population, our 100 year plus old German district, our turn of the century and early 20th century architecture or our charming Bayou Garden District along the bayou instead of a freeway? These were all early ingredients and this is what Houston could have been today if it didn't sell out. All I'm saying is that some damage has been done but Houston controls it's own destiny from this point on and can become a new type of city if it wants to. It's not about following existing models but by following a unique Houston model. Please never forget that Houston was the 'Magnolia City' for 120 years before it ever was the sprawling metro of the 'Space City'.

I'm sure many of you will agree that the Houston pavilions suffered a major blow when the developer decided to pull out the residential portion of this project due to financial reasons. The residential portion would have at least guaranteed that someone would have to been there 24/7 and if reasonably priced may have attracted the type of resident downtown Houston desperately needs. This would have really made this project as a true mixed use center for that side of downtown and created synergy. Knowing that the residential portion will not be included we have to wonder- How will the Houston Pavilions fare? Will it be an entertainment and restaurant Mecca as envisioned by the developers or will it be Bayou Place South and face sparse crowds at certain hours? WHY IT WILL SUCCEED 1) Disco Green - This is going to be a blessing for this part of downtown and the day crowd around the park may lead to the night crowd frequenting the Pavilions a few blocks away. The question that remains to be answered will be how consistently will this occur? 2) Metro Rail- The location of the Pavilions is along the rail line and this is a great location for the current line and those heading to the Pavilions from the future rail extensions. 3)Lunch Time Crowd- The lunch time crowd in both the neighboring skyscrapers and the office component of the project will sustain the success of the restaurants at lunch time Monday through Friday. Hopefully, the trend here will not be like almost all of the rest of downtown- restaurants will have limited hours and very short hours on the weekends. 4) Houston House Apartments- News of a developer intending to spruce up the Houston House may be good for the Pavilions. The more reasonably priced housing near this project the better. 5) Future Development- This portion of downtown has plenty of room to grow and if designed intelligently this area could grow into a nice neighborhood and the Pavilions could definitely be a big part of it. WHY IT WILL FAIL 1)No Residences. As stated before this will have a HUGE impact on the project and having so many people anchored to the project because they lived there would have turned this from a place you visit to a place where you call home. All of the tenants would have benefited from this in some way. 2)Location -Let's face it. the location as it currently stands is not the safest and most inviting spot in downtown. 3) One Park Place -True we are getting a new residential tower in close proximity to the project but I don't think a luxury apartment will have a significant impact on it. I doubt the resident of a second home 6,000 square foot penthouse in downtown Houston would be someone who contributes to the downtown Houston night life of the Pavilions on a frequent basis. 4)Houston Shops- This is a great parallel for the Pavilions. It involves restaurants, retail, is close to many offices and is very busy during the weekday lunch hour but is DEAD come late afternoon. Even the fronts facing the street are dead after 5. Of course the pavilions will have more of an entertainment flavor to it as Bayou Place does but will it be enough? 5) Not enough destination retail.- Do any of the tenants really excite anyone? Some of the restaurant and dining tenants are unique but again the Bayou Place also has unique dining and entertainment options and that has not reshaped that part of downtown as it should. Of course I would love to see the Houston Pavilions become a huge success, spur development, and fuel an renewed interest in downtown never seen before but I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. What do you guys think?

Ricco, Can you give me an update on this project? I heard about it a while back but I haven't heard anything else about its status. -Does the owner still own this property and is it progressing or is it dead? -Have they cleared the land or are there buildings on the site? -Have they hired a prject architect to handle the design development or is it still in the conceptual stage? Idf so -who? -Is there a definitive time frame for this project? Any verified details taht you or anyone else could add would be appreciated. This seems like a great project for that location (especially with the planned rail extension) but I haven't seen it in the press as much as the other mixed use urban projects. Thanks

When is the park scheduled to be open to the public?

Has Hines ever cared about Historical or Neighborhood Preservation? Go back and look what was on the downtown sites where their buildings now stand.

He's pleased with the way Houston has developed but thinks more housing would be good for downtown. "I think dead cities at night are dangerous and cause all kinds of problems and lead to rapid deterioration," he said. Anyone think this might be a tease as to how the new 47 story downtown building will be designed?

I checked last week. I was looking for an apartment and every place that I checked near downtown, midtown, etc was at least 96% occupied. This would justify Camden building a second large complex in midtown because the demand is there. Rice only had two or three 1 bedroom units available in the next 1-2 months. Go check for yourself.

Hines has done residential before- haven't they? Why can't they do a 47 story mixed use building with retail, residential, and office space? If it's on or close to Main it makes sense to diversify this development. The restaurants/ bars on the ground level of the Rice lofts seem to be holding their own and last I checked the Rice lofts are 98% occupied and the rent is around 1500 a month. There is a demand for housing. Hines really needs to make a splash in downtown with a 'new' type of development for downtown Houston. They really do. The more we can put people in a quality building 24/7 the more there will be a demand for retail, restaurants, and other services in downtown. As great as Pennzoil and Republic/Nations bank are they almost do a disservice at the street level because you are walking past a blank wall that kills any momentum on the street level. We need to create synergy not voids. In Chicago the city goes one step further and they require that even parking garages contribute by adding retail or restaurants around the perimeter. They require the parking garages to be architectural. We are not Chicago but it would be nice for the developers to think this way because that is what the market demands.

Let's hope Hines learns from the mistakes it made in the past and can build a building that integrates the pedestrian street level instead of destroying it. It is possible to accomplish this and still have a striking skyline presence. Every new building or element in downtown can either help make downtown a neighborhood or detract from it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed because the city is actually putting their money with their mouth is to make this a reality let's hope the big developers get the picture.

That looks like a great design for that site!! I always thought that the two most valuable sites downtown are 1) Texas and Main (historic, dense, rail line, close to Minute Maid and the Theater, etc ) and 2) the site at the base of the new park (Discovery Green, GRB, toyota center, hilton, etc.). I would have to say that based on the renderings -this design understands what it takes to translate the energy of the site and all that is around to the building form. I really hope they make this building really interactive and busy at the ground level (tv's, plenty of shopping, restaurants, etc). This building could offer alot of potential- offices, hotel, residential?? Who knows what else. Great news for downtown if this happens. I bet the people doing the Pavilions are going to wish they had included the residential portion because it's going to be a very competitive market as to what part of downtown is the most exciting. I feel as if the park site really lost some of the momentum in transfering the site with the conservative design but hopefully we will get something downtown for everyones' preference.

You are entirely true but HOUSTON is not Denver Denver is actually considered a tourist destination and a 'hot' place to live. Houston is not either of these. Real World selected Denver because it is an exciting place when did they select Houston - they didn't. I've never been to Denver but I am going to guess that more people live in downtown Denver than in Houston. Plus I am going to guess that the tenants of teh Denver Pavilions are because those tenant wanted to be in downtown Denver whereas downtown Houston would be more of a gamble.

I really thought that this project lost almost all of it's character when the residential portion of the project was cancelled. The reason given was that the huricanes inflated construction costs. lame. I really am excited about what this project represented or could have represented but am worried that in the end this will be another bayou place or park shops because they did not integrate residential with the project. The user group goes from residents and their guests who would view this as their 'neighborhood' to the initial secondary group of....... visitors of the park, the arena, and the 9-5 downtown workers, etc.. Everything is riding on these houstonians who do not live here. We've all have seen how that turns out. Once these people get bored with the pavilions they will look for entertainment elsewhere because there is no attachment. I cannot strongly stress that the residential component almost had to be a part of this project to be succesfull. With this good....but not great list of tenants I really am worried. Sure the park tower will add residents to the area but it will not be the same. The residents are not actually a part of the pavilions. What does it take to get a mixed-use project with residential in downtown houston?

Notice in the model sketch that there will also be a proposed 'new student housing' next to the Engineering Complex. This is in line with the UH vision of becoming a livable and educational part of the city. It's refershing to see a section of the city actually have the authority to enforce a master plan and one that would actually guide what is best. What is going on a the University of Houston is very exciting and the rest of the districts in Houston (uh...downtown) should be very interested in what planning can actually accomplish and that coming up with some type of enforcement to what goes up may be beneficial to everyone. Also, does anyone have the latest information on the University Rail extension? Have they decided how it is going to meet with the campus?

This discussion is very interesting and there are many intelligent viewpoints but maybe shouldn't we open up a new discussion centered around some of these topics? The question I was looking to have answered is: What is the current status of the Pavilions??? Is it true that the housing component is going to be eliminated because of (cough) a construction material increase due to Katrina??? Couldn't they just wait this out or try to spec more economical materials because of this . This is obviously a cover up, so, what is really happening with this project? Has anyone found out a real reason why they are drastically changing the scope? We need to try to find specific reasons why this thing is lagging behind and might face the same fate as Ballpark Place and the Shamrock. Is it REALLY that hard to add housing to the CBD of the nation's 4th largest city? Lesser cities have this done all the time....

I'm well aware of all the work the city has done with the courthouses, GRB, Sports facilities, hotel, etc. etc. Believe I follow all of it, All I'm saying is that the city would better served if they implemented some kind of plan than gears 'private' development toward their vision instead of the other way around. What is the point of having a rail line that is capable of serving a number of people efficiently if all you get built along the line are strip centers, gas stations, and vacant lots. (an extreme example of course) Wouldn't it validate the hard work the city has put in if they could implement a type of development that would 'benefit' the rail line instead of detracting from it. The city could mandate just the type of buildings or they could become really strict and detail style, materials, height, etc. But something is better than nothing. All I'm trying to say is I wish the city would take control of the future growth of the city instead of being suserviant to the developers whim. This city is still a 'tabula rusa' -we can still become any type of place that we want but that window is closing fast.

Must I REALLY explain to you how LONG it took to install a light rail system downtown when the city had a rail system all up downtown and a commuter line to Galveston a century ago. Yes, they got it done in time for the Super Bowl, they added the pavers- that's great. The city also hired a number of out of state architecture firms to do a study on the future development alongthe Main Street Corridor- they don't have any authority to implement how any of the land will be developed according to this vision. The streets are not private property so they can take care of that. But I must say they are starting to flex some of the land use powers with the new urban park/ urban space. I just wish they would go one step further and legally adopt a plan for how the land around the park should be developed as an example.

Exactly my point.