intencity77

2 hours ago, mls1202 said:

Sigh...blue glass office building that obscures what was a pretty nice brick residential mid-rise (and a big one at that).  I can't help but be disappointed.

Yeah the blue glass trend on buildings has become a bit overdone and tired IMO. 

So we have the former Houston Downtown Post Office listed as a historic building by the state and then we go and implode this architecturally historic building in Pasadena?? I don’t get it. Other than Galveston, historic preservation here in this region is truly a joke. 

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

Wasn't up to the city. This is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so it's historic-ness was determined by the Texas Historical Commission (and the feds agreed.)

 

 

Well no wonder. Thanks for the clarification. The feds probably only approved the listing since it was a historically government owned building.  Regardless what the commission/feds think on its “historic-ness”, I have to disagree on this one. Maybe I can see the listing for the administration building only, even as butt ugly as it is (really? facade modifications aren’t allowed?!), but not for the surrounding distribution warehouse portion. That’s purely ridiculous if so. Guess this means I am not as pro-preservation of “historic” buildings as I thought I was. Lol. Oh well. 

While this building hasn’t been recladded, its exterior style is reminiscent of the architecturally beautiful buildings that were “modernized” with recladding of ugly sheet metal in the 50’s/60’s. Regardless of its supposed concrete structural integrity, I don’t think its facade is architecturally or historically significant. It’s mind boggling that the city sees some kind of historical significance in this plainly put, beige warehouse and not in the many historically beautiful buildings that have since been torn down and still are to this day. Very backward priorities. 

So I wonder if the Hard Rock Cafe downtown at Bayou Place will stay put or move to this thing when/if completed?

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

That is a pretty hip special needs office. Good for them. Do we know what street and cross street this is?

 

Harrisburg and Eastwood. You can see the newly built Baker Ripley building on the first picture to the far left.

The front corner and balconies in the rendering look alright but the many repetitive cut out windows just really kills it for me. It immediately reminded me of the same cut out windows on The Hampton/Homewood Suites Hotel downtown. Also, the modern yet bland minimalist look doesn’t really mesh well with the surrounding “historic” neighborhood. I feel since this current design trend took hold, we have become very closed minded to all other styles. The modern trend just doesn’t translate well in every location, this to me being an example. The height is okay considering there are other tall buildings nearby. 

I can’t see this hotel brand lasting at this spot for long. It’s at a very weird location. “Walking distance to Sams Club and Walmart”? Lol. Only in Houston. My bet, it gets rebranded to a mainstream hotel tag if built. 

38 minutes ago, iah77 said:

Why are people here obsessed with W's? They haven't been in since since like 2010 and there are a ton of better brands that have popped up since then. 

Because Houston never got one and still doesn’t. 

2 hours ago, thatguysly said:

The BHPBillinton sign has been taken down

Maybe a new sign is coming? The old, original sign was placed on top in 2016, some time before the August 2017 logo and name shortening to BHP. 

Not to totally derail this topic but I really dislike the many “address only” titled topics. They are completely useless and rarely read on my part. Names of businesses and/or developments need to be included in the title if there is to also be an address. 

Solely basing on these three renderings, it is not groundbreaking like the original design was. Definitely has lost its edge.  And personally, other than that awesome Houston freeway map on the ceiling, I dislike it. 

23 hours ago, Timoric said:

I think Houston metro  had other big things going on in other decades like Kingwood and the Woodlands that were among the best of their type and highly successful

Large, yes. Transformative and forward thinking, I think not.  Developments like The Woodlands or Kingwood only furthered sprawl, they are the antithesis of the “forward thinking” projects I believe Arche_757 was referring too.  

It’s an ugly and cheaply made looking development. Will likely be falling apart as fast as it becomes outdated.

Looking at you too Post HTX. 

16 hours ago, Triton said:

Here come the unnecessary protests.

This is a totally unfair statement when the East End is and has been taking in the brunt of this type housing. Where are these type of developments in the Heights, Midtown, Oak Forest, or Montrose?? Are their residents too pretentious, classist and elitist to take their share of some of these new low income housing facilities?  Affordable housing is a responsibility ALL sides of town should be sharing in.  I am all for low income/affordable housing but not when they are incessantly being concentrated in one small area. Sorry but that’s just not fair and at this point I can no longer blame EE or EaDo residents for protesting. 

13 hours ago, IronTiger said:

 

Freeway-building starting slowing down around 1970 (at least, big ones) due to new environmental concerns and land value issues. It's not a recent issue.

That may be for the US interstate system of freeways as a whole but we have still built alot of freeways and tollways since that “slow down”. Hardy Toll, Westpark Toll, Fort Bend Toll, Grand Parkway, Beltway 8, Pasadena Frwy, Crosby Frwy, not to mention the crazy widening and lengthening of all the existing freeways over the decades. Now we have the coming destructive I-45 rerouting around downtown, billions still being poured towards building the Grand Parkway in extremely sparse areas of the metro and now this wasteful thing to tiny Alvin. I think it’s all overkill at this point. 

44 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Or literally anything else. Reclaim that land for UH. Convert it to stormwater detention. Or some sort of residential use. Or just plant a bunch of trees. Some kind of art. Giant climbing wall. Anything at all would be better. 

While I agree that the spur restricts integration of any future eastern expansion UH might want to build out, there is also the issue of the many train tracks blocking any kind of integration as well. 

This freeway seems wasteful and pointless. The rest of the country is moving away from constructing new freeways, yet Houston is still crapping them out in every direction. That money would be better spent towards regional mass transit.

Other than its dreadful podium and its protesting residents I really don’t think the design of the Cosmopolitan is as atrocious as many people like to say it is on here. The tower portion above the garage is neither stellar nor bad looking IMO. With that said, I honestly do not care whether it’s “blocked” from view or not. Want to see truly ugly, look at the neighboring Astoria, and those two faux Tuscan style, beige behemoths, Camden Post Oak and Dominion Post Oak Apartment Towers.  When can we pretty please block those from view too?!

Wow, seriously? Circular architecture is now deemed “dated”? Don’t tell that to Apple’s Apple Park HQ. Lol. I seriously can’t wait till boring, rectangular blue glass boxes become “dated”.

38 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

I will definitely help lead this fight. The East End is not going to be a dumping ground for the City’s “undesirables.” After the City and others snuck the New Hope SRO facility in at Harrisburg and Sampson near the Green Line with very little advance notice or opportunity for input from residents, everyone around here is paying much more attention. 

Don’t get me wrong all of these facilities have a place and a right to exist for those who need and utilize them. The problem is the heavy concentration of them in one area of the city. In recent years the East End and EaDo have been taking in many of these facilities that were once in Downtown, Montrose, Midtown or elsewhere. East End/EaDo residents have definitely taken notice of this pattern, more so than in recent years. It won’t take much more to break the camels back for residents IMO. Such facilities should be spread throughout the inner city/city. It is the only fair approach for ALL city residents and for those who utilize said facilities. 

Where ever it ends up moving to, the city better not even attempt to relocate it to EaDo/East End/Eastwood. We already have way more than enough of the inner city’s “undesirable” facilities, not to mention the coming demolition and arterial street cut offs from the downtown freeway project. Be prepared for a fight from residents if that’s the case.

It was in 2013 from the state by the inept Perry administration for $12 million from the Texas Enterprise Fund. Six years later Chevron has yet to fulfill their part of the bargain. Besides, who’s to say they won’t pull an Exxon and move to the burbs, in this case The Woodlands? 

5 hours ago, iah77 said:

 

 

They aren't in a rush and have recently acquired acquired some other big lots recently. They function in a long term land bank strategy. They own so many lots of Harrisburg for example, was there a rush to put in Baker Ripley or the CVS?  It's not even 1/5th developed. 

That’s part of my reasoning. I lived across the Harrisburg/Lockwood lot for nine years. According to HCAD, they’ve owned it since 2007. In 12 years all that’s been developed on that lot is a CVS and recently the Baker Ripley campus. Even so, 2/3’s of it still remains undeveloped today and derelict like many of the numerous properties they sit on for years and years. Mind you this is light rail fronting property. 

My other reasoning was their inexperience in large scale, high density, urban projects, which is the most blantantly obvious choice of redevelopment for the downtown Post Office site. They have no proven track record in this kind of large scale urban redevelopment. Only townhomes, suburban retail strips and small urban strips like Sawyer Yards. All of which at least to me would be inappropriate for the Post Office site. 

These are the two reasons that have made me doubt this project from beginning.