ToryGattis

Does anybody have an update on the status of this building? This is the latest I could find:

http://swamplot.com/digging-out-from-heaven-on-earth/2011-08-04/

HBR on the rise of coworking and its benefits: http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/09/the_rise_of_co-working_office.html

So, pretty much artists' studios wherein art is broadly defined to include any variety of creative professional. Sounds good. Someone should develop some of those. It might work as a component in a redeveloped Central Square Building, but such an endeavor could be put in many different structures. Is this the best structure for such an endeavor, or are we only desperately seeking a means to back-fill an obsolete structure?

I'm running on the assumption that renovating an old abandoned structure is much cheaper than new, keeping costs and rents down.

I don't want to talk about this on Facebook. Facebook sucks. I'm going to talk about it here.

Tell me more about the necessity of serendipitous connections. And tell me how an individual or a building might contrive them. I do not understand.

The Facebook conversation was just for context/background. Not trying to move the conversation.

Serendipity: large open shared work areas and common areas. People mingle. Talk. Ideas meet people who can help implement them. Ideas spark off each other. Technical experts combine their knowledge to work on a problem. Teams self-organize. It's a community. More at the Wikipedia article on coworking.

[bite my tongue!]

Sorry, I keep forgetting that you're the expert.

Not necessary. Definitely not an expert. Just an idea for discussion. And I appreciate your points/thoughts. I do agree with you that mixing in young professionals that are recent college graduates is a good idea. I also agree with your last points about Houston, and those are a definite advantage, but it doesn't create the serendipitous connections that people need in the entrepreneurial world. This kind of building could spark those.

FYI, the Facebook discussion on this topic is here: http://www.facebook.com/groups/houstonstartups/permalink/349925645091586/

The biggest obstacle is that the floorplans are bizarre, narrow in some places and deep in others, resulting in a high ratio of common area to rentable area.

This would actually be a feature for the co-working space. Also shared common areas for any dorms/apartments.

To address the issue of the building's highest and best use, I agree that some kind of specialized use would probably be best. (I'd like to see a second design center, like exists off of Woodway, but with the Cork Club restored on top.) I'm hesitant to endorse the idea of it being dormitories because to the extent that Rice or UH are going to build new dorms, it should be on their campuses. Business incubator space seems like an interesting idea, and if students want to start a business in such a facility, then they should be welcomed to; but the focus should not be on students.

I think that makes sense about the Universities putting dorms on their own campuses first. But there are master campus plan issues - is the highest-best use of campus space for dorms or academic buildings? Rice chose to put its Grad House off campus and run a shuttle bus. Rice also has a bit of a different model for undergrads because of the college system (think on-campus co-ed fraternities with cafeterias that everybody gets assigned to - no rush). Assuming it hasn't changed since the 90s, the model has always been to assign about 1/4 to 1/3 more students to a college than it can hold at any one time, forcing some students off campus, usually for just one of their years (and some want to be off campus). So, bottom line, as long as Rice keeps that model, no matter how many dorms they build, around 25% of the undergrads will be off campus in any given year. Any new dorms will go to overall student body growth, not increasing the percentage on-campus.

As far as UH goes, no matter how many dorms they build, the majority of students will almost certainly always be off campus.

In Austin, there seem to be apartment complexes that specialize in UT students, including matching up roommates in multi-bedroom units and offering leases based on the academic year (I think). This might be something like that too. I wonder if the old Days Inn/Holiday Inn would be a particularly good fit for that model? It wouldn't require as extensive a remodeling if a kitchen weren't required in each unit, instead having a common kitchen on each floor (my dorm at Rice was like this). And most students would be perfectly happy with an efficiency unit the size of a hotel room.

Part of the reason for mixing the residential and incubator space is simply that these buildings are far too large to fill with startups in any reasonable time frame. The residential can also create a predictable baseline of rent revenue to support the building, and subsidize the incubator space. I also think there's a great talent match there too if students are chosen for an interest in entrepreneurship and technology. Some will start their own tech startups, of course, but I think most startups are founded by older professionals. They would love to have access to very affordable or equity-compensated talent in the early days when funding is tight - and students (or recent graduates) are a perfect fit for that. Like I said, it could be a very fertile entrepreneurial environment.

Another thought: The hot thing in Silicon Valley is shared houses with techies doing startups - sort of a live-in incubator/co-working space. Here, Rice forces ~1,000 undergrads (and all the grad students) to live off campus every year because of a lack of on-campus dorm space. What if that Central Square building (or another) was converted into a mix of small apartments and shared living areas aimed at Rice students plus co-working/incubator/office space open to anyone? I think it would be incredibly popular, and win-win both for the students and the startups to be exposed to each other. Something along the light rail line would be ideal for easy back-and-forth to campus. The old Days Inn/Holiday Inn tower would be another option. I think it could be a pretty amazing entrepreneurial environment...

How looters haven't claimed that state-of-the-art technology, I'll never understand...

Does anybody know the story behind the abandoned mid-rise(s) in Midtown bounded by Gray-Travis-Webster-Milam? History? Who used to be in there? When did it close down? Owner? Plans? Any obstacles to renovation or tear-down? (asbestos? something else?) Current state of the building inside?

Part of the reason I ask: there's been some buzz in the Houston entrepreneurship community about needing a more concentrated district of startups, and I think that building could be an interesting opportunity, especially since it has a giant parking garage and is just 3 blocks from the Houston Technology Center and the walkable Bagby-Gray area, not to mention on the LRT to Rice, TMC, and eventually UH. Wouldn't have to be a complete redevelopment - maybe, to start, just fixing up a floor or two to be usable, climate controlled open-plan low-cost/retro office/co-working/incubator space.

Insights appreciated.

FYI, my blog post on the KBR site:

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/09/houstons-last-opportunity-for-another.html

Everybody seems to want this land to end up like CityCentre or the Sugar Land or Woodlands town centers, but the retail components of those places absolutely require the vast numbers of upper middle class residents in the many miles of neighborhoods around them to support them (the residents on-site are nowhere near enough support). Given that this site does not have those income levels surrounding it, I'm not sure what's feasible. It seems like there are a few options:

- go for very high density so the on-site residents can support the retail. There will definitely be a chicken-and-egg problem for quite a while as it is built out.

- focus mainly on residential and office space, and the residents will drive elsewhere for most retail

- try to do something more tailored to the area demographics, maybe like a town center version of Gulfgate? (which I believe has been quite successful)

What I think would be ideal would be to establish a new university campus. Houston is lagging peer cities in college campuses and numbers of students. Maybe a Texas A&M branch? Or Texas Tech? Or UT has an undergraduate branch in all the other Triangle cities but us. UH probably wouldn't be thrilled, but competition is good, and it would attract more students from across the state and region to Houston, as well as provide new a new higher ed option for locals, which would have to be good for the city.

We could do something similar to what NYC just did with Roosevelt Island, eventually awarding it to Cornell for a technology campus.

More lanes are needed, and express lanes are certainly one way to get those lanes.

One problem is the placement of the columns to support the elevated express lanes. The lack of an interior shoulder on the Pierce Elevated rules out that option, so the elevated structure would basically need to span the entire Pierce Elevated.

A likely bigger problem would be objections from anti-freeway interests to a taller elevated structure.

If opposition could be overcome, an upper deck with elevated express lanes is likely the least expensive and surely the least disruptive option to add capacity.

Just drove it, and it definitely seems feasible to elevate 4 or 6 express I45 lanes over the Pierce Elevated and plug them to the underutilized, very long freeway ramps near Scott Street (3-4 lanes each direction!), but I agree it will take careful placement of the support columns. I'm not even sure there would be that much resistance from the adjacent buildings since their bottom level parking garages are quite high.

Not sure where to plug them in on the north side, but there seem to be plenty of options. Maybe near Dart street, just before I10?

Max, what do you think of a simplified solution like I45 express lanes (no entrances or exits) elevated above the Pierce? Then the 59/288 exit could be re-striped to send 2 lanes onto the Pierce instead of 1 (only one will be needed from 45 on the lower level to handle those exiting Allen Parkway, Memorial/Houston, etc.).

The solution is a 720-degree roundabout. Two roundabouts, one on top of the other, one going clockwise and the other counterclockwise. If there's a backup on one, then thru-traffic can take the other.

In essence, it'd be the same concept that we have today except with double the capacity on the same amount of land.

I don't think that's technically a roundabout - that's just a split deck freeway where each direction is at a different level ;-) But I like it. Easier might be to create some elevated express lanes over the Pierce Elevated - no local entrances or exits, just express lanes for 45N and S.

Another thought: if they do explore the roundabout concept, I hope they make it counterclockwise. Can't beat that skyline view coming south on 45N... especially at sunset or at night...

Plenty of red meat here both in the article and in the comments. I think the downtown roundabout idea is pretty intriguing, although the years of construction to make it a reality makes me shudder. Could suffocate downtown the way LRT construction suffocated those corridors.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Here-s-a-roundabout-way-to-ease-traffic-congestion-3836900.php

As was mentioned before, absolutely nothing changes about United's connecting traffic. Any passenger connecting thru IAH had a dozen other connecting options they could have chosen, including, at some point in the future, Southwest, no matter what cities they decide to use for Latin America service. Here's what changes: United could gouge local passengers on intl nonstops, and thus offer cheap connecting tickets and still have very profitable flights overall. Our city shouldn't really care what connecting passengers are paying, it should care about what our own local citizens have to pay to travel. Opening up competition will help that. And I still believe the lower local prices (which United has to match) will stimulate demand, thus creating more flights overall, inc. from United. They just won't be as profitable for United. In essence, we're forcing United to offer the same discounted fares to locals that they currently offer to connecting passengers, at least to the limited set of destinations Southwest will serve.

BTW, on another note, all of these pro-United arguments have an additional problem that they apply just as well to domestic service as intl service, yet does anybody really believe we'd be better off if we closed Hobby and shut down competitive SWA domestic service?

For some reason, I'm starting to agree with conclusions such as these:

Houston: You Blew It on United Hub

http://www.thestreet...united-hub.html

In my opinion, Houston airplane travelers may have won, but the Houston economy and employees lost out in the long run.

Respectfully disagree. This was written by a stock analyst trying to curry favor (maybe United will grant him Diamond elite status?). He's also probably not happy that it's going to cut into UAL's profitability, thus limiting the stock. And he *completely* ignores all the Latin American tourism we may get coming to Houston as a result of competition and lower fares. The Auckland flight was gone anyway (they had already pre-announced using that 787 on Denver-Tokyo). And some minor United cutbacks in Latin America service are going to hurt Houston's business competitiveness? Please. "You know, we'd grow in Houston with 650 daily United flights, but 600? Nah, unacceptable!" And I'm betting most of those will come back once SWA stimulates lower prices and more demand. Now compare that to businesses who do a lot of Latin America business, whether U.S. companies (or their Latin divisions) or U.S. branches of Latin American companies: "Low fare competition to lots of our destinations? Sold!" They might even consider Houston over Miami!

When is a decision to be made?

It's vague, but probably by the city council this month. But it's at the discretion of the Mayor when she puts it in front of them.

Just getting to this thread...

I recognize that IAH is a United hub, but they're not the only airline that has international flights to and from the airport. So, isn't there already competition for United in international Houston-based travel?

Admittedly, I don't really know how all of these arrangements work, so could someone explain to me why this is such a big deal?

A recap from my blog posts...

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/04/learning-from-fll-vs-mia-for-swahou-vs.html

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/05/debunking-uniteds-anti-hobby-arguments.html

and throwing in a little humor...

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/04/hobby-to-close-iah-turned-over-to.html

Blog post is up

Debunking United's anti-Hobby arguments

http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2012/05/debunking-uniteds-anti-hobby-arguments.html

At the end of the day, every argument United is making against international service at Hobby could also be made against domestic service at Hobby ("it weakens IAH", "it drains traffic to support our routes", etc.), but nobody in this city (excluding United employees) would think we were better off if we closed down Hobby and eliminated the Southwest competition. When seen through this lense, all of United's arguments crumble.

Funny thing about "studies". They always seem to favor the group that hires them. I wonder why that is?

Clearly true for the United study, but to clarify, the original study showing large benefits for Hobby internationalization was commissioned by the Houston Airport System with independent consultants completely unaffiliated with Southwest.

It will increase demand overall between the two airports but since United will have to share the market, their share compared to what they are getting now will not actually increase, correct?

And although this will increase demand, aren't airlines barely getting by right now cureent gas prices. If they are forced to cut their prices bc of competition, it will cut into their margins even more. They will probably have to cut more services or do something to offset things, right?

Their share will drop, but their total passengers will increase as reduced fares increase demand. It will cut their profit margins, but the flights will still be profitable, so cutting them will just hurt them further. In fact, they will have to add flights to meet the increased demand, so they end up with more flights with lower profit margins per flight.

This may be stretching it, but with cheaper fares to/from Houston from latin america, will that encourage more latins to move here or will it have no affect?

I don't think it will have any material affect on people moving here, *but* it certainly may increase tourist visitors from Latin America to Houston, boosting our tourism economy.

If Hobby expansion goes through, how will it affect current expansion at IAH? Aren't they currently expanding terminal B?

If anything it will probably accelerate it, based on the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale case study. Competition = lower fares = more demand = more flights.