shasta

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.

It's not about optimism- so am I.... but the people who are trained in this field know that we should expect more from our city from a planning, organization, coordination, design, and aesthetic standpoint. So when people view this city it's laughable. It's hard to explain but the benefits of 'planning' can far outweigh the current condition. It is going to take peple like you, NJudah, and the rest of the living-working class to take pride in this city to make it better. I seriously recommend that anyone who is interested in this read about the benefits of urban planning, city beautification, and the like. Houstonians should demand more after all this is home... refer to my post on the previous page about attitudes toward cities, their growth, and their planning.

Houston 19514, if you believe that Houston is a fine, shining, example of urban planning then that's fine- I respect your opinion. The truth is that most people who "actually" study and do this for a living actually cringe at what could have been and what has become reality for this city. And I'm not even going to go into the environmental implications. Frank Llyoyd Wright once likened our city to an STD- something that grossly grows out of control. Now back to Montrose- It was originally created as a street car suburb (yes- tracks of mass transit went here) and was named after a town in Scotland. Most of the houses have since been torn down, some renovated, I'm not saying the ecclectic feel of today's "Montrose" is bad - I'm just saying the city has nothing in place to preserve the intended character of urban planning. A lot of hard work goes into trying to create this 'sense of place' This is evident in Midtown- how can you design with an intention of pedestrian frieldy areas if there is nothing stopping someone from building a CVS that kills all momentum. All of Houston should not be zoned- only a small portion to preserve the romanticism the area is trying to create. I mean do you think a giant discount furniture store should belong next to the MFA?

Oh, so zoning lets you tear down houses -build a gas station and a pawn shop right next to an existing house in the middle of a residential area? Please educate me???

Some type of zoning would have helped preserve some areas character such as the residential area of Montrose. What could have developed around it would a have been fair game but preserving what was there should have been a priority. Also don't rest your hat on the "we're the 4th largest city". This is because the city encompasses so many square miles. St. Louis, Philadephia, Boston, Baltimore, and others probably have more people per square mile than Houston. Oh, and we did have a city plan in the early days it was drawn up by Borden.

City planning/ growth/ development is a funny thing. It's almost as if cities go through different phases. In the early to mid 1800's when America was pushing westward the East Coast (notably New York City) looked for a city to act as a trade route or outpost for their transfer of goods from the Erie Canal, Great lakes and down the Mississippi River- so many Eastern Capitalists from Boston and New York poured money into developing Chicago but their profits and their money came back to the Eastern cities where they put the money earned in Chicago to 'beautify' their cities. This is the same model the British used with Boston and New York centuries before. Chicago has plenty examples of horrible EARLY city planning particularily in it's race relations and public housing. They didn't know how to handle the vast immigration and the Southern influx. Soon Chicago had a enough loyalty and support for the city that new businessmen made it their goal to 'beautify' their city and they looked for other markets to make money so they could invest their money back in to Chicago- one good example of this was the Chicago and Detroit businessmen that profitted from Los Angeles where land was being speculated and divided at a record pace and most of the early settlers were from the great lakes and America 'heartland' parts of the country where LA was highly promoted. The automobile was advertised as the future and LA's vast train system was replaced with roads. Soon, albeit still in the process, people in Los Angeles have started caring enough about their city to influence it's growth- it was the first US city with a zoning plan. This brings us to Houston which in the 60's and 70's was a field day for anyone looking to make a quick buck in the real estate, oil, or banking markets. Zoning and city planning was frowned upon- it was a 'true' anything goes, western frontier. After all the market will establish what the city will look like. And so they built our city- but their intention never was to contribute toward the urban fabric, beauty, or charm, of the city as Hermann, Rice, and others had done. It was to make money which they invested back into their original cities. This is even evident by some of Houston's own developers who replaced downtown residences, churches, and meeting places with landmark skyscrappers named after companies( some who are headquartered here and some not). The truth is that these skyscrappers are what killed downtown which in the 50's was truly the heart of the city, the refineries polluted our waters, and the automobile rendered our city as it is. The question is: Has Houston reached the phase where more people care about 'beautifying' the city and are willing to resist development that might make money but does not contribute toward the well being of the city. So far the answer is No but I think we are in the right direction.

MidtownCoog, just curious have you been to any of the meetings or have you visited the website? Or is this whole thread based on speculation and hersey? The city wants the people of Houston to come up with about 20 activities from which the designers will formulate a program and then a design. If you have any ideas, now would be the time to have your voice heard. The website is www.houstondowntownpark.org

First off the city specifically said- they don't want another Millenium Park- price overuns, random designs, bad planning, etc. I have been to Millenium park and it is nice but they are hoping for something better more united. What Houston is looking for, which also confused me at first, is not a "park" but an "urban space" with vendors, cafe's, attractions, etc. plus greenery, ponds, fountains- They want Houstonians to decide what activities will ultimately be included in the "park". It's more like a NY/ European style park, or a a piazza- Houston style, of course, then Memorial or Hermann Park.

OK, welcome to Houston! Most people outside of Houston have zero perceptions of anything in Houston.

Houston's Main street is still a surprise. ?????You probably haven't been here all that long. Main Street has been popular since 98'/99' slowed down during the light rail construction and just now is starting to come back around to pre-rail status. Some residential in that area will really help

Houston's downtown skyline in "Post Modern". Philip Johnson had a huge say in the look of our skyline.

texasboy, Did you ever get a response to your email?

Oh, yeah I forgot about another project. Have you seen the plans for the new parking garage at entrance #1- It is going to be mixed use garage- A 'Chicago' style garage that looks like a building but is actually a mix of an outer shell of retail and office space with a inner shell of parking garage. It should add your desired density and retail. Seriously, take a Sunday afternoon to walk around the campus- you can even feed the squirrels if you'd like.

Everytime I go to downtown on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, there is very few people there, 3/4 of the restaurants and retail are closed. I guess, I'm also waiting for new residences downtown to rejuvinate that area as well. But, UH has gone through a minor building boom here recently. I guess you've seen the new Cesar Pelli building on Elgin but have you seen the other projects?