33 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

It's not that you'll inspire people to walk around by forcing them down to the street level (although maybe they'd be slightly more likely). It's that having a skybridge over a street hurts the streetscape for anyone else. It says "Special people up here - plebeians down there." Think of any great street that people like to walk around on. Lower Main Street. South Congress or 6th Street in Austin. Houston Street in San Antonio. McKinney Street in Dallas. The Strand in Galveston. Anywhere in the French Quarter in New Orleans. Now picture a skybridge - just one skybridge - going over that street. Terrible!

Plus, it sets a precedent. Think this will be the last medical building in the Museum District? And every medical building will have to have a skybridge for their patients so they don't die. Next thing you know, the Museum District is Medical Center North, and we will mourn the neighborhood that might have been.

This area is pretty rough right now so I would totally be happy with a "Medical Center North". You make this area sound like some elegant area of Back Bay or something. The stretch between here and the Ion is literally abandoned buildings, needles, and a flower shop. 

Since this is right before a curve, I think it will have a huge presence which will give a much more urban look to this part of the freeway. 

1 minute ago, Houston19514 said:

The turnover at ROD is probably not particularly unusual, especially for a pretty new center such as this in times of a pandemic.

I think it is. What is unusual is that prime tenants have reverted back to the Galleria (i.e tom ford, akris, probably dior). ROD's sister project in Atlanta [Buckhead Village] which opened with an almost identical tenant mix has not seen the same wave of departures. I think the stores in ROD attract a lot of people to the restaurants due to making it seem very upscale. Would Toulouse be so busy if not next to a very aesthetically pleasing dior store?  Probably not? These two other similar complexes saw a boost after covid, not what's happening here. 

In Dallas, Highland Park Village's departures have led to even more niche and upscale retailers opening in the void while ROD's are left vacant a long time and heading in a direction that will scare away the original tenants.  

I don't really care, I'm just scratching my head on the re-alignment since I think Houston should be able to support 3-4 high end centers like Dallas has. 

45 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm cool with the industrial, but it always makes me wonder why the city never grew towards the water.

I think due to historical reasons like flooding and malaria, there were reasons to not build too close to the water. 

I means this was in 1935 lol.

9 minutes ago, monarch said:

^^^ pleeeeaaaase bring back forty-five ten, this boutique was like a mini neiman marcus.  MAGNIFICENT!

Forty Five Ten was destroyed when its old owner died and the new owner made bad hires. They closed all their stores besides downtown Dallas location and it's only open 3 days a week at that. It had so much potential before it was ruined. I loved their NYC store before it closed. 

21 minutes ago, Fortune said:

Haw many vacancies are there in this development? 

I know there are at least 10?

Former Akris, Tom Ford, Cavalli, the furniture store, former forty five ten etc. 

2 hours ago, astrohip said:

All this time, and it's affordable housing? Plot twist indeed. If most of what Urban Genesis does is this, I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before now.

Me too, that would totally explain why the they did a bait and switch with tearing down the beautiful warehouse. 

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

I have never lived someplace with an HOA and doubt I ever will. 

You are conflating "saving our homes" with "preserving the single family nature of an area". Those just aren't the same thing, and you've made no effort to explain why "preserving the single family nature of an area" has any inherent value, especially an area that never was completely single family. Even putting Studewood aside, most pre-WWII neighborhoods were built as a mix of single family homes, duplexes, triplexes, small apartment buildings, and shops. They were built that way because that's how you build a self-sustaining neighborhood. That's how you ensure that people at different financial means can all afford to live in the same neighborhood. 

In an environment with rapidly increasing property values, all these kinds of zoning restrictions do is artificially restrict the supply of housing and price out a lot of the same people who, in the past, would have moved to the neighborhood. Look at the neighborhoods that do have historic district status. Buying a modest house in Heights East or something is no longer realistic for most people. At least the historic ordinance doesn't regulate use though, so you can still open a shop, cafe, or restaurant. And at least we have garage apartments. 

Totally agree with this, near northside was much more commercial in the past with small scale multifamily than it is now. Many of the structures used to be duplexes that were later turned into single family by just taking down a wall. "Preserves the single family nature" is much more sinister than it sounds and it meant to keep anyone else away and restrict supply dramatically raising prices as what has happened in other places like California. 

Most of us here I imagine live in the inner lope btw*

10 hours ago, Paco Jones said:

UG made a deal with the HHA (prior to starting) to develop the land and then turn it over to them. I believe they have done this for almost all of their properties that are being developed here. 

Are you saying this whole project is affordable housing? Plot twist*

53 minutes ago, Triton said:

It shows the city sided with developers over residents in the area. And there's a lot of residential on Studewood already so if residents want it, they should be allowed to have it.

Developers have a lot of tools at their hands to get what they want and residents should have some sort of tool too... And that's called zoning laws. 

Nice try with backward thinking and anti-urban argument... The truth is your silencing the voices of the people that live in the area and allowing people who have power and connections to get what they want. 

I spoke to my neighbors last night about this troubling fiasco that happened. There are a few odd exceptions here but the city made a very bad call. We filed for Minimum Lot Size near White Oak Music Hall to save our homes here and it's good to confirm that it looks like the same cannot happen where we are. 

I think zoning is exclusionary by nature and we live in a city so individuals on a specific block should not be able to dictate what goes a on a busy cross street.  

We all pay taxes into the same pot so why should some people have more of a voice than others in how the city develops overall? Rich people should not be allowed to use minimum lot sizes to preserve large chucks of land in a city that is trying to densify. 

I think the tower might be mixed use so this would be the office portion of it? 

1 hour ago, tangledwoods said:

aesthetic dumpster fire.  for an eye doctor, dude doesnt seem to have a good vision.....

People are so critical, it's literally his own personal office building lol. The amount of disused buildings in the area is the real dumpster fire

3 hours ago, clutchcity94 said:

https://houston.culturemap.com/news/restaurants-bars/05-11-22-loro-asian-smokehouse-restaurant-second-houston-location-kirby-rice-village-aaron-franklin-tyson-cole/#slide=0

This being open in a year seems a bit ambitious no?

5 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

I just love how this project has been on the drawing board since 2002 and expected to be finished 30 years later. 

 

Dubai did this.....in 6 years 

 

They also built islands in 10 years....

Are we not as advance as we used to think?

Sorry but what does planning a freeway/infrastructure far in advance have to do with building a skyscraper or a district like the Pudong?

If anything your comment shows that countries with no citizen representation whatsoever get to build whatever they want very quickly so maybe autocracy is the way to go! If you thought TDOT was not nice about condemnations, you should see what they do in China. 

22 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

I think either way, ROD is headed in the right direction. It made sense for the stores that left to Galleria, I think it was inevitable. They want to be in a high foot traffic area to get more walk ins. However, some stores don't need or want that because their clientele is already known and may even require appointments like Hermes and Cartier. Same goes with the jewelry stores. I know most might disagree but I do think its possible stores like Chanel and Tiffany may eventually move to ROD because they also have a certain clientele and don't really rely on walk ins. Stores that require a lot of foot traffic will probably never consider coming to ROD like LV, Gucci, Versace, etc. Just my take. 

 

Tiffany is now owned by LVMH and most definitely relies on heavy foot traffic for a large portion of sales. I think ROD is going downhill retail wise and will end up just being a place mainly for restaurants. I really want them to succeed but I feel the project should have been a little bigger to achieve more of a critical mass. It's very hard to compete again Simon Malls because I'm sure they get a huge discount for having stores in large numbers in multiple malls of their portfolio. We will see what the future holds

5 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

The parking requirements are insanely ridiculous. Isn't there a meeting soon about parking mins city wide? 

That area has an issue where for some reason none of the streets allow parking even though they are super wide and not that busy. I've always wondered why

Just mentioning since I feel street parking would make the area feel much more alive etc.

12 minutes ago, trymahjong said:

Oh my……” Complain-to the City about crime” sounds so easy. I guess it should be easy, but a small police force trying to cover a huge population in a relatively large geographic area makes complaining harder;  the chance of addressing those complaints……even harder.

I guess it only takes one encounter with a horrible  criminal “ up close and personal “to give one a new point of view.

Ideas to prioritize crime and safety hum  in your brain……no one wants anyone else to be a victim of a similar encounter. …….so most of the questions one posts sound a bit uh naive?

IMO Any developer that works so hard to have state of the art staff that come up with  a dynamite architectural  look, greenery to die for and a charming business……….that developer surely can research and develop a new or “ out of the box” way to offer patrons more safety against crime than a lone watchman walking the perimeter at night.

Yes, a hotelier should definitely get a criminology degree and research new and "out of the box" solutions to reduce crime as if this isn't one of societies most complex (and controversial) issues at the moment lol. Nice architecture and a garden are what a hotel owner should do, not be expected to police the areas outside the property. You should contact your local councilman and judges who unlike a hotel actually have the power (and mandate) to keep us all safe. 

2 hours ago, trymahjong said:

I also viewed the lovely  presentation at the Neartown meeting. There was a question posed concerning security patrols. It was responded to in a throw away type answer…. No need for walking security till nightime….there will be cameras and people everywhere…..a lot of eyes and ears.

hmmmmmmm my own experience with one nest camera and one ring camera => great pictures of what happened and who did it BUT Houston criminals didn’t get memo that cameras were a crime deterrent IMO cameras aren’t that great to lead towards arrest and conviction. And about all those eyes and ears… I am remindered that COH gave the same Schpeel over security at Avondale promenade park “ no worries there will be lots of dog owners in dog park at all hours….. That turned out to be untrue and the park has been vandalized => in ground plants keep getting stolen  sigh.

The entire presentation centered on the openness, accessibility and freedom to move about this property and surrounding museums. Gotcha! But crime has really increased the past 2 years…. Sure violent crime, but also purse snatching, assaults and even panhandling. Attend one of the Central 1&2 Division PIP meetings and you see the statistics. I am surprised then that more thought didn’t go into the problem of adequate  security.

 

I agree it looks like a potential issue but why do you feel this is the hotel's problem? Shouldn't the blame be on the city? It's getting very expensive to put these extra responsibilities on not so large businesses. 

I was surprised how suburban it feels for the land values in that area.  They are tearing down a lot and seems like not replacing it with much.

17 hours ago, Big E said:

Maybe its moving to the River Oaks District?

I doubt it, RO district has been losing top brands lately. Prada is present in other Simon owned properties so I doubt they would leave for an a small independent center that's trending downward.

Prada closed and it looks like Dior is taking over the spot. Bummer

Miu Miu (owned by Prada) also closed but I cannot tell how long ago it happened. 

1 hour ago, clutchcity94 said:

I’m sure Chase is thrilled. Will the entry way into the branch be from the rear of the building (non-Montrose facing side)?

I don't think this is a "retail" branch from the looks of it.

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

Oh lord... we can't have the rabble with their darn dirty tailgating tents.

Besides, this is merely a temporary installation until something actually happens with the property, so you rest easy at night.

I'm curious about your opinion on open markets elsewhere since you just seem to make an association that this is only something one finds in third world countries. Maybe, I don't know, take a stroll along The Seine, The Spree, The Thames, every local market in the Balkans, every little German town market (Mauer Park in Berlin?), every fishery in little Italian city/town, or tourist trap areas in Rome, Florence....I can keep going but please enlighten us about a more sophisticated solution free of peasants.

If you think this looks like something in Europe, that's crazy.

This looks like (a bad part) of Lagos or El Alto en La Paz.

Even as temporary it looks horrible. I've seen many temporary markets where they at least make nice plywood fronts

On 3/13/2022 at 3:57 PM, hindesky said:

Drove by today, the church is still there, they were having services when I went by. 

 

On 3/5/2022 at 12:11 PM, editor said:

Can anyone point to a freeway that hasn't divided, ruined, or otherwise negatively impacted an urban neighborhood?  

I haven't been everywhere, but of the places I've been, it seems like lots of cities are tearing  down or burying their big urban freeways because they ruin the quality of life for people living near them.  Seattle, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Boston, and New York come to mind.  Over the last 20 years, Chicago has had at least three proposals to cap the Kennedy Expressway, and one to shove Lake Shore Drive underwater.  The city, CDOT, ILDOT, and the planning commissions all encourage large skyscrapers along I-90/94 to act like giant visual walls and sound barriers to isolate the noise, filth, and blight of the highway from the city. 

I'd like to see a city that's figured out how to make this work. How to integrate highways and neighborhoods in a way that works for both. 

Airports are also noisy and ugly so we should just demolish them as well, and throw things on the list like sewage treatment plants etc. Did I-10 dived and ruin Katy? Is the Woodlands ruined by 45?

People vote with their feet and this is what people wanted at the time highways were built in central cities. Demographics and priorities change so it's ok to re-evaluate but just saying highways are a flat out negative is useless. 

59 minutes ago, SMU1213 said:

Crazy that Highland Village's owner's money comes from chemical weapon sales to Iraq...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1992/02/09/exporters-of-death/3810097b-cd11-45cf-b284-d72275a611af/

I'm confused, the article says chemicals that can be used in oil production or possibly chemical weapons but where does it actually say they were? It's crazy how this article refers to everywhere as Third World like 50 times lol.