largeTEXAS

Man, TheNiche, you must be buds with the good 'ole Billy Burge and all his associates that developed Cinco Ranch; former Mayor, Lanier; the Grand Parkway Association; Texas State Highway Commission; Ed Emmett; and the North Houston Association, just to name a few, to believe all that. I wish that were the way it worked. Sadly, our tax dollars (a little under $10 Billion just for a few of the major projects) have gone into road building and all sorts of other infrastructure improvements that, in turn, fund private suburban and greenfield development. You are correct, the City is not responsible for all of it, but it all comes out of the taxpayers pockets, whether it`s the City, the State, or Federal Stimulus money. Imagine what $10 Billion could have done for Houston inside the Beltway: 1. Entire Buffalo Bayou Master Plan, estimated $5.6 Billion 2. Entire light rail system, estimated $3 Billion 3. City-proposed Astrodome renovation and redevlopment, estimated $1.35 Billion

The Houston Pavilions is a monumental disappointment, in my opinion. The architecture is weak, the orientation backwards, and the public subsidies mostly wasted. I have to admit, though, I was excited and hopeful before it was built that it would make a sizable and positive impact downtown. Even though it was the mid- to late-2000's and investing in bad real estate finance was en vogue, I don't believe the City (or County, in the case of HP), should have given any subsidies to a shopping complex with a very suspect, at best, pro forma, without, at the very least, tying them to certain performance, i.e. outward-facing orientation of retail storefronts, especially along Dallas St., the use of standard retail window glass that's much more transparent, and more and better landscaping. My point on the PPP/public subsidy issue is twofold. 1. Houston needs more public sector involvement to adequately transition to being a denser 21st Century city. But, 2., our current planning department and other governmental agencies that have been in charge of making decisions on the use and conditions of the public's money in regard to development projects have been pretty impudent. RedScare, you're probably right that we likely won't be seeing many new public-backed projects in the near future. Inevitably, though, Houston will need PPPs and public subsidies, as any major city has and does, for many of the large-scale projects it wants to build so that Houston can "transform into one of the next great global cities of the future." I would prefer a department of qualified planners informing those decisions rather than what we've had, which has given us El Mercado, HP, and all the soon-to-be built communities along the Grand Parkway. No government agency can be perfect, and there will always be mistakes, but a better, beefed-up planning office with actual powers and cojones and the legislative ability to help create and plan strategic city-benefiting projects is far better than an anemic department, like the one we have now, that has been given close to no official authority over how the city takes shape. It's an interesting and challenging time in the city's development. Houston is evolving from a place with almost endless land and a laissez-faire attitude towards development and policy to a city where density is starting to demand a different way of thinking, planning, and building. I think it's time to start acting like a big city where transparency is required for the public sector's involvement in development. I applaud Mayor Parker's efforts with Metro. I believe a similar standard should be set for the planning dept. As for lighting, I think it's pretty straightforward. Map an area where certain signage and lighting would be allowed (the zone in downtown and Midtown where parking isn't required makes sense) and let the landlords do the rest. If a building owner wants to put an electronic billboard that reaches above 40' off the ground, let them. The market will dictate to them what works. And, I still think neon is cool, no matter how unpopular it is on this board. The no-neon ordinance evolved out of fear of sex businesses having neon legs flapping all around, etc. If you don't want pink neon legs, just restrict sex businesses from using neon, or something like that.. To your comment, TheNiche, about suburban developing receiving no help from the city government. The City is indeed involved with each and every greenfield suburban development, mainly through new and costly infrastructure, which is a heck of a lot more than is given to most infill developers.

Pleak, if Tokyo or Hong Kong had the sign ordinance Houston has, it still wouldn't have any lights or billboards on its buildings, no matter how many gazillions of people on the streets.

A strong public and private sector are not mutually exclusive. Conversely, well-planned city building is almost always reliant on the heavy involvement of both. Houston has just long done a poor job implementing public private partnerships, I agree. Instead, and worse, in my opinion, our city has acted as though the public sector were't involved and struck all sorts of backroom and closet deals - see all Wulfe deals, especially both Gulfgate and BLVD Place, just about every ex-urban master planned community, etc. Instead of turning a blind eye to the fact that major projects almost always rely on public sector involvement, let's give the planning agencies more visibility, and, therefore, scrutinize them better. Houston's poor track record of PPP in the past should be acknowledged and learned from. This does not mean we should simply turn against them. Instead of shunning the public sector's involvement, let's make it more official, accountable and better scrutinized, and we should see better results. Name any successful major real estate project in the world that hasn't relied on the public sector's involvement to some extent. If downtown is ever going to successfully build the types of projects we've discussed on this board such as the Buffalo Bayou "river walk," major TOD, or any other major mixed-use projects, the public sector will have to be involved. Mind as well acknowledge its existence. In the past couple of years, Houston has started to kind of get it, I feel. See Discovery Green and Marvy Finger's One Park Place, Market Square Park, and the soon-to-be, I hope, IAC arts complex in Midtown. Pleak, I can't believe you don't think Houston is as dense as Hong Kong or Tokyo! But, what does density have to do with lighting? Im missing your point.

TheNiche, what type of lighting do you consider "gimmicky?" By Houston standards, it seems as though any lighting that is more involved/thought-out/decorative than the barest of bare-bones utilitarian falls into the category of "gimmicky." In my opinion, add a little strategic lighting to a few key buildings, bridges, and landscaping, and all-the-sudden Houston is a much more attractive and inviting city. I'd like to take a page from places like Singapore, New Orleans, Tokyo, Sapporo (in the winter), Montreal, Miami, Paris, or, even, Hong Kong. When can we get over comparing ourselves to Dallas all the time?! Houston should stop restricting landlords and let the market downtown dictate the lighting. If a building owner wants to sell space to an electronic billboard company, let them. Variety is a good thing (or, the spice of life or whatever). Blocks and blocks of blank walls is a bad thing. Or, even better, create a initiative with Central Houston and key landlords and encourage more and better lighting implementation. Houston, especially downtown, needs more PPPs. A stronger and better-informed, well-traveled public sector should be able to guide our center city towards becoming a more visually-interesting, unique place - gimmicky and all.

samagon, I too have been lobbying Critical Mass to ride through the Galleria area. PM me an let's join forces in persuading them. How nice would it be to ride with 2,000 other riders down Westheimer to Post Oak, stop for a moment, and then head north on Post Oak!

I agree with Nick_G that downtown has an issue attracting a large segment of Houston's population and visitors in part because of the percieved dominance of the homeless in certain areas. I don't agree that the City or any other governmental or planning agency has the right, should, or even could do anything directly to remove these people from downtown. In my opinion, the real issue that many attribute blanketly to homelessness, is actually the continued blight of certain key properties/places and the lack of activity by non-homeless people in these and other certain areas. Renovate or replace derelict properties with well-designed, pedestrian-oriented buildings/spaces and, all-the-sudden, you have nice, active places where homeless don't want to congregate. The market downtown is moving in that direction, albeit slowly. Abandoned buildings, parking lots, underutilized properties, etc. have and will continue to be replaced by (mostly) better buildings/places. What the City, planners, and powers that be should and continue to do is add vitality to the public areas like sidewalks, parks, and its properties, to slowly surround and drown out the problem areas with nicer surroundings. A few other thoughts: 1. Revamp the sign ordinance to allow traditional and electronic billboards and signs in downtown proper. Also allow neon once again. 2. Allow property owners adjacent to proposed rail stops the opportunity to work with the City in designing and paying for rail stops. Certain stops could be built inside or connected to structures like the Houston Shops. You want TOD, then partner with landlords to build it. 3. Give tax incentives to developers/landlords that create public spaces, add public art, add vertical gardens to blank walls and parking garages, and/or do extensive landscaping. Embrace how (sub) tropical Houston is with plants everywhere!

The Astrodome needs to house a new, gigantic Art Car Museum. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of art cars that have been retired and are sitting rusting in fields and garages. Art cars are Houston's folk expression known worldwide. The Astrodome is a bit of a folk icon at this point. Combine the two and you have an outstanding destination.

I went to the event yesterday and was blown away by the plans. I hope they upload the renderings soon, but, essentially, they are treating this as Houston's "Central Park." The amenities the newly-redone park will have combined with the expanded and dedicated wilderness areas will create a truly beautiful, usable park. In short, there will be: - at least 2 opportunities for restaurants/cafes - a formal dog park with a small pond for the dogs - another pond for kids and people who casually want to interact with the water - new wetlands - thousands of new native trees - the removal of exotic-species plants - a sizable budget for ongoing maintenance of the bayou and its surroundings - 2 concert venues, dozens of art spaces - dozens of canoe launch sites and rentals - new trails including different types of trails through different parts of the park - better connection to the surrounding communities - 3 new pedestrian bridges, etc.

Since this city will not get itself together with a comprehensive plan, let alone zoning, projects like this will become the rule, not the exception. Residents have voted down zoning numerous times, but when projects like this sprout up, they cry. I have no sympathy for a place that refuses to think and plan long term. That regressive thinking will continue to pit neighbor against developer and prevent this city from developing into a well-planned "utopia" where both single family and multi-family residences co-habitate peacefully. And, since there is no plan, I see developments like this as god-sends. At least terms such as "walk-ability" and "density" are being discussed while Houston crawls towards being a place that resembles a smarter, more sustainable, transit-inclusive, viable, post-1950's-era city. Yes, developments like this would be better placed where other, similar buildings were being built and amenities such as wide sidewalks, stores, and markets were within walking distance. But, that would suppose a lot more changes that this city has not made and will not make anytime soon. So, in the mean time, we get developments such as these in "random" places. Welcome to Houston.

It's a mistake to not include a more significant residential component to this. The current renderings are a far cry from what the market could support. I would be upset, to say the least, if I were an investor. I hope they at least build this with the ability to add density later.

Exactly, that's all - a variance request. Had Wulfe wanted to built to the curb, he could have, almost without resistance. No one in the city would have protested. A development of this quality and scale should not be allowed to add a row of parking in the front. Houston needs to get its act together.

Not true. If the developer had wanted to develop to the sidewalk, aka zero lot line, it could have. The developer caved under pressure from some of the retailers, especially Whole Foods. It's a shame. Such a great-looking and permanent-looking project except the dang parking strip in front. Too bad.

Wow, it looks really boring!

This design a result of the new status quo? Acknowledged. But, for the most part (except for the western-facing curtain wall), I think the design works and offers the Med Center an exciting and much needed bit of design freshness. These are pics of one particular bit of (amazing) Spanish architecture that I think SOM clearly references: Moneo's Murcia Town Hall Extension http://www.jaunted.com/files/admin/murciaextension.png http://www.arikah.net/commons/en/b/bc/Murc...dralSquare1.jpg

It's too darn bad the freakin' Calais built that goofy "ground" floor parking garage. That sure was some forward thinking...

In about 3 weeks you'll be able to buy some really friggin' cool athletic shoes across the street from the Pavilions at Main and Polk. The Tipping Point, in my opinion, will be cooler than anything in the Pavilions.

This is my favorite post in a LONG time! Thanks strickn! You put forth a very fresh and informed perspective....one of which we should all take note.

If this will indeed become their "Galleria" area, I think this is far better than a mall to work around. But, in my opinion, this development - like many New Urbanist developments - looks cheesy and faux. I really hope these types of developments evolve into "real" cities over time because they look and feel so Disney-fied. Kudos to Austin though for planning! The Houston Galleria area is such a clusterf$#*; we seriously need to employ some of these New Urbanist principals to combat the total lack of planning and serious traffic issues.

Things are moving along with this project. No tenants to announce just yet though

I'd tell you but I'd have to kill you

This sure looks like forks an knives to me! http://www.finesilver.com/ "Finesilver is committed to bringing work by Texas artists to the national and international markets. The formal program includes works exploring the manipulation of materials, new media and inventive processes of painting and sculpture. This portion of the program holds the practice of inventive materials as a counterpoint to the tradition of the figure within the vocabulary of contemporary art. "

Well, the city that invented the mall, Milan, sure thinks grocery stores are good anchors. Milan Elan Shopping Centers Today, January 2007 MILAN

Oaks District is nowhere near ready to break ground while BLVD Place is very close. To me what is really interesting is what will happen if and when all these developments are complete. Since they all want to create Houston's version of Rodeo Dr. or 5th Ave., one or more will likely have to change scope (unless this city can all the sudden supports multiple high end districts). I think West Ave has the chance to be the most accessible of the developments, simply because the mix of tenants will likely be less couture-only. While I'm excited I might finally be able to buy a pair of Miu Miu's or Paul Smith shoes here in Houston, being able to walk around and hang out without getting hit by a car (hopefully) is what I'm most excited about.

If all goes as planned, construction should start in the next few weeks.