iah77

10 minutes ago, samagon said:

that's being a bit kind, my understanding is that the Midtown TIRZ has purchased a lot of land East of 288.

 

They don't take care of the lots they own at all and leave all the houses abandoned. I feel they are responsible for half the blight of the 3rd ward. Literally make the area look like crap and then say they are needed to "fix" it.

I'm honestly shocked that in an area with so many empty lots this was the most feasible for them... they wiped out like half the area.

11 hours ago, asubrt said:

The exterior is basically complete except for a few finishing touches at ground level and landscaping. Doesn't seem to have been much progress on the buildout of most (or any) of the interior floors from what is visible driving by the BW8-I10 flyover.

From the back there are floors that seem built out already and look nice lit up.

Wow, so elegant. 

On 4/16/2021 at 9:03 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

Well yeah you can't save every little building. But the overall plan for this area is to reuse many of the old buildings or incorporate them in to part of the design. They haven't done much to say it's ruined. Some of those plots are up for sale.

As you can see in the pics above it always starts with one "little" building and now boom everything is being demolished lmao. People never learn... do you think it's ruined yet?

On 4/15/2021 at 4:21 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

This area is about to explode. So happy to see developers not just tear down the charming buildings in this area. The Warehouse District should be a destination for people. 

I think they are already ruining it. They just tore down a building that they can't really replace that well due to the lot size... what in the world can they put there that will have the same patina effect? The area is full of empty lots and they tear down structures still lmao.

14 hours ago, architeckton said:

It’s not the permitting or the cost. It’s solely the developers risk tolerance. Radom Capital definitely sees the payoff in leasable spaces if they spend money on good design. 

Rice Design Alliance

Super in depth article on the project from Rice Design Alliance. 
 

 

1689357034_MontroseCollectiveRisingRiceDesignAlliance.pdf 2.56 MB · 9 downloads

Cost is literally a synonym for risk tolerance, and yes for most small developers going bankrupt is something to advert lol. I think we can all agree that the city does not make it easy and encourages bad design. 

16 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

If you ask me, it’s the developers who are averse to creativity, not any particular parts of town. 

You realize city permitting makes anything that is not super cookie cutter very expensive, time consuming, and risky to do right? Need variances for anything remotely pleasing to the eye. 

53 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Abbreviated exit ramp?  Do you mean the one that exits the main lanes of I-69 just after St Jospeh Parkway and dumps northbound traffic on to St Emmanuel just past Polk (almost 2000' in length)?http://ih45northandmore.com/docs13/02_NHHIP_Seg3_I-45_RollPlot_PH_2-3.pdf Then they'll have stop lights at Dallas and every 320' thereafter all the way through EADO.  And once you get to Lamar, there's the park on the west side of the street (Sorry, H-Town Man; not a Big If. That cap park is happening.) Sorry, I don't see a problem there.  It's actually quite similar to freeway traffic being "dumped" onto CBD streets at points all around downtown; In all such cases, traffic is immediately calmed by, among other things, traffic signals every 320'.  

As I said earlier, check back in 10 years or so; we'll see who was borderline delusional.

Agreed, I think all the positives outweigh the risk. I think back parts of Eado will develop nicely and parts closer to the park will become much more dense as what happened in Dallas.

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

Building on what thatguysly said, imagine you own a Maserati dealership in River Oaks, and you read in the paper that Houston auto dealerships are doing badly. You know from your books that the Maseratis have been selling like hotcakes, you can't keep them in stock. So do you scale back your inventory because Houston auto dealerships are doing badly? Do you take a wait and see approach based on mixed messages? Or do you buy the building next door to your dealership, tear it down, and double the size of your dealership, and also decide to spend less time reading the paper? Probably the third.

It's about market segmentation. The market for brand new office space is different from the market for Class B or even 40-year-old Class A office space. Most of Houston's office stock was built before 1985. And we have a lot of "River Oaks" office tenants (oil companies) that don't care if there's a bargain, they'd rather shell out for the latest and greatest. So we will keep seeing this trickle of new office buildings.

 

I think it's worth mentioning right now that rates are so low for these big loans that a new office building can be pretty competitive price wise with the older ones. In other words, the companies are getting a huge upgrade in space while not necessarily getting a huge rent hike. 

Considering Rice raises the rent of everything they touch that seems highly unlikely... otherwise they would have savd the one in Rice Village

Wow, that's a big deal considering there is no national bank in the area...  will give it a nice urban feel. 

8 minutes ago, thatguysly said:

Are there examples of towers being added on to after they are completed and occupied? I know there are for parking garages but that seems a lot easier to manage and workaround. 

MD Anderson added several floors a few years ago to their main building, it was designed to be expanded as well.  

10 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

That opinion has never been expressed here before. Wow. I never thought about it this way. I will never have an opinion on something I do not own ever again. Thank you for the brand new perspective. 

So caustic.

I don't like the design either and feel it totally turns away from the water versus opening up towards it. They should have built a corniche style road or plaza and oriented all the buildings towards the water which would have looked more natural. They tout so much things on urbanism and then build these bland boxes full of massive garages that look no different than Hardy Yards.

54 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Source?

Chicago literally is the personification of corruption with most of those expenditures going to public employee salaries. There are literally municipal tree trimmers who earn over 105,000 a year, so amount "spent" doesn't necessarily correlate with the quality of their parks.

2 hours ago, hindesky said:

Do property owners get to decide what the street is named? The name was removed because it was named after a losing officer from the conquered confederate army. The confederacy lost the war to hold slaves and this is a largely black neighborhood, I think they should have a choice in the name of their streets vs. some racists rednecks from the suburbs. Since when do losers get to have stuff named after them? Lol, back at you racists POS.

I'm racist being a person of color and actually living in 3rd ward?

39 minutes ago, cspwal said:

According to the city, there's two ways to change a street name - either a citizen petition with 75% of the property owners on the street, or by city council passing an ordinance after notifying the owners.  Notably, the council don't need to get consent from the owners; the check on it is public pressure on council members to vote against it if it is too out there

 

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Forms/devregs/StreetNameChangeProcedures-Standards.pdf

I own two properties on the street and no one wanted it renamed that I know along the street. I don't care, I'm just mentioning on how the city does whatever it wants anyways in the end. 

Maybe because it's name was changed illegally without the consent of property owners lol. 

27 minutes ago, ljchou said:

Not a great sign. I appreciate them engaging the area with art and a drive-in theatre, but I would prefer to see boots on the ground. Makes me wonder what these "pending agreements with the city" entail.

We are in an election year and recession so it's kind of interesting people want huge projects built with these horrible fundamentals lols...

14 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I think Houston's approach is actually pretty standard.  Property owners are responsible for sidewalks.  Where Houston has differed (and failed, especially in the past), is in imposing and enforcing sidewalk requirements.

Just because it's "standard" government abuse does not necessarily make it right lol...

16 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

Yes, I do think that, because it's true. Roads and highways are massive money sinks. Look at how many billions of dollars we spend on highway interchange redos every decade! People absolutely take for granted how expensive modern streets are.

Tons of concrete, rebar, and way, way more labor than people think. And I doubt the overpass had zero work done on it in 60 years. Even quick pothole fillings and asphalt patches cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour. Multiply that by 60 years, and that's a massive price tag considering the overpass generates zero income to cover that cost. That's not to mention all the small things it costs the city administratively, though that's small peanuts compared to the public works price tag.

Comparatively, a park costs next to nothing to build or maintain. And, removing the bridge would have made one of the most important connections between Midtown and Montrose safe and pedestrian friendly. People used to and still do treat it like a highway on/off ramp instead of a neighborhood street.

Sounds like the contractor charging thousands of dollars to fix a pothole is your problem and not the actual overpass lol...

People actually use streets and highways. It's funny how upset people get when things don't fit their narrative.

Btw, as a Houston resident and person who pays taxes, why shouldn't people be allowed to use it as a cut through? You make it sound illegal. People treat it like a on/off ramp because that is what is it. So if everywhere becomes a "neighborhood street", how exactly would you even move smoothly through Houston? Through our non-existent subway? 

14 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

Hmm. This is pretty enlightening, although it sucks to hear this is why the project fell through.

Considering how other projects/proposals have gone through Planning ect. with overwhelming positive feedback, I thought it was really weird how this specific project fell through when it seemed on the outset to be a slam dunk: take expensive infrastructure off the city's books, increase pedestrian safety, local homeowners get less traffic on their neighborhood streets. Considering how much it usually takes to get a city initiative cancelled in Houston, the opposition seemed very disproportionate to the response.

Honestly kinda glad to know it was a cluster from the start, because it gives me more confidence in the current and upcoming city initiatives that I know are being done correctly.

This project would have been a disaster, amazing how fast things can pass without public input when they benefit very wealthy homeowners in a two block radius. 

You don't think that new park would have been more expensive to maintain than a basic overpass that survived 60 years without maintenance btw? 

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Some of us like the Exxon tower just the way it is, although it would be nice to get it some new tenants.

Agreed, I think it's really beautiful architecturally and historically. Why does everyone want ever building to look the same? 

25 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

I understand that this is a Holl building and that glowing boxes are sort of his thing.  It’s a fine building, and I’m sure the interior will be nice and functional.  Safe with a little twist, in my opinion.  I’m just waiting for Houston to commission a “take your breath away” piece of architecture that makes people worldwide go, “Whoa!”  I think we missed an opportunity to really advertise Houston’s impressive cultural establishment to the world.   I’d submit places like Bilbao, Denver, Mexico City, Antwerp, Valencia, Hanoi, Paris, Alberta, Minneapolis have seized their opportunity more effectively.

I think people forget that the centerpiece of the MFAH is the Mies Van der Rohe building and anything built around it needs to converse with it and be harmonious. Almost all the buildings you posted are the center pieces of new urban renewal districts or major real estate projects. I personally think the museum should have opened a concept like PS1 by Moma/Tate Modern in a part of the city that needs revitalization or an attraction. Something iconic on the bayou or east end. I think the museum's main campus is already so large and over whelming it would have been nice to have two sites.