Jump to content

arche_757

Full Member
  • Posts

    1818
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by arche_757

  1. Exactly Marathon Man. Be bold. The fact they’re still sitting on this with just the most marginal of expenses to build this out doesn’t bode well for its future. I hope I’m wrong in my pessimistic view of this project. My past experience in both projects I’ve worked on, and ones that pop up in this town tells me otherwise.
  2. We are each allowed opinions. Mine veers toward the dramatic - at times. This developer had dreams of OMA but an EDI budget (they probably cannot really even afford them!). My point early was that someone better suited to a more transformative development should have this project. Sadly that’s not how things worked out for this site. And it will be developed into something far less than what it should be. Because. Houston.
  3. Best outcome now is bankruptcy for these joke developers. They see value in a dumpy building, the true value is in the land. A shame this is what it is. I’ll gladly eat crow if they turn this into something. Anything really beyond what it’s heading toward. But having been disappointed enough with our talentless designers and developers here I won’t be holding my breath. This is probably the biggest disappointment in terms of development of any scale in Houston in quite some time. There’s plenty of disappointments elsewhere (Thor Equities buildings are terribly hostile to the street and a waste of space - frankly), but this is the biggest loser. I mean look at the Albert Thomas, yes it’s successful in that it isn’t vacant, but that land is FAR more valuable than what it is. This monstrosity will be the same thing minus the interaction with the rest of downtown since it is across the bayou.
  4. Money talks. No reason a developer couldn’t incorporate the Dillard’s into a high rise tower - Water Tower Place in Chicago is one example. It would make sense for the Galleria to expand east and tie into Dillard’s in some capacity here in the future.
  5. One can hope it’s more than just a Twin Peaks! That said, at what point do we over saturate the market demand for food halls? Ideally the site would eventually become home to a nice mixed use high rise (or two - including Dillard’s). Sadly I think that the market for something like that is unlikely at this time.
  6. Obviously we need to design with a clear mind when it comes to potential for weather. I think we need to design homes with greater resiliency for the weather - any weather.@
  7. I am curious what all of you feel are needed elements, and which are unnecessary elements of a suburban home in greater Houston circa 2030. How would that home differ from what it is today? What would you change about the house? yard? street? neighborhood? This is just an open discussion on the suburban home of the future. There is no right or wrong. Assume the following: Houston has continued to grow (9 - 9.5 million), weather is still a major concern, and the urban areas of town are booming..
  8. Hindsight tells us a little bit more open land would be very good... just say’n
  9. Kingwood and a few other areas were over developed (sadly) without regard to the 10,000 lbs gorilla staring them in the face: upstream flooding and river management, or lack thereof in event of flooding. This is the same for the areas near the Brazos in Fort Bend, and areas built in the flood pool(s) of Buffalo Bayou. It’s a shame. What’s even worse is that elevating structures another foot or two - at the time - probably wouldn’t have been that costly. Now it’s a BIG expense. Not saying that they wouldn’t have flooded otherwise during certain extreme events, but I’ll wager quite a few would have been fine. We need a regional flood authority, with regional control and -importantly- oversight of these yokel river authorities. This should be true moving forward state-wise... but I’m not going to hold my breath.
  10. Probably so. Would be somewhat separated from the rest of the campus, but perhaps a chance at a distinctive structure? Not that they are necessarily lacking. I imagine a high rise residential project will ultimately end up at that property... ? Which is good I suppose.
  11. You’re correct. That said, I believe Galveston’s intention in implementing the LDR was to define standards which would remove the potential for buildings like the San Luis or maybe even the convention center. They were trying to avoid having developers block entire blocks of low-rise residential, which is technically still possible - albeit much more complicated these days. Folks in Galveston *want* expect to have beachfront views from their scabbed on garage rooftop porches, even if the “structures” are 2-3 blocks north of the commercially zoned Seawall frontage. That and they’d reaaaly like to avoid any high rise development along most of the Seawall. There are too many Galvestonians that think they deserve some sort of grandfathered in exclusions for their immediate backyard. Which, as a homeowner myself I don’t necessarily blame them, but you have to weigh the risks when buying near (1-3 blocks) of a commercial zone. If Johnny Developer comes along and smacks down a 5-floor building on a piece of land which is zoned for such development - what should you expect?
  12. UH D should buy that land... They’ve probably looked at it, but the entity that owns it most likely wants $$$! Is Transwestern the owner, or just representing the owner?
  13. Doesn’t appear scaled correctly for a 58 floor tower. Look at the base. That said, if this IS the design: garbage.
  14. Particularly that 4-phases will be developed in the next 10 years!! 2.5 years each. Pretty aggressive, indeed.
  15. I must admit the quality of ideas in regard to development has drastically improved over the last 20 years. East River, Station Houston and TMC3 (among others), while different entirely in what they are - are the sort of forward thinking, large, transformative projects Houston was known for decades ago. Those 3 alone will greatly alter the landscape in town. This is an entire new district created in an area where these sort of projects wouldn’t have happened with the developers of the 90’s and early 00’s. At all. Midway has - in my opinion - clearly separated itself from anyone not named Hines in this town. Good for them. Better for us.
  16. I should have added prior to posting that it was a sort of running joke among the architects and engineers who worked on the project. Sarcasm is hard to decipher (and convey) over the interweb’s sometimes.
  17. I recall speaking to some folks who worked on the project and this was a common theme brought up. Probably was a VE item suggested by the GC before design went public! I’d have loved to be a fly on that wall.
  18. I thought I was one of the few! I’ve routinely said we’re at, or over 7,000,000 for the last several months. Pretty impressive! When I started college in 2001 we had about 4.1 million people here in town.
  19. I think expressways or freeways with a limited number of lanes helps, and provides options for moving around town not just for students at UH but anyone driving through. If TxDOT builds the rest of this(?) it should be kept away from future capacity expansion for at least 10-12 years. 2-lane (ea. way) freeways or divided highways work fine as an alternative to the bigger interstates and toll-roads, that is until TxDOT starts expansion.
  20. It doesn’t bug me as much as it used to. Of course there are FAR worse buildings around Uptown than these little faux-techture structures of RD.
  21. Well... things are looking up. Literally! Hoping we continue to see some better architecture in Uptown. And man..! Does anyone want to guess # of that rebar for the foundation? And that would be size not quantity to the lay-person.
  22. I understand your frustration. Galveston is a frustrating place! I think (having dealt with the permitting process for commercial properties there many times) that Galveston has the right mind set, if perhaps a somewhat flawed set of development guidelines. The Land Development Regulations, more specifically the Height and Density Development Zone mandates that projects provide public interaction, and engage the street frontage (among other things). That said, these same standards have, to an extent, limited what can be built within the same zones where the City mandated density. These standards have no doubt chased away some good developers who don’t have to deal with such oversight in other jurisdictions. For example: a mid-rise project requires an investment of affordable housing (on the project site). Presumably these units could be built elsewhere on the island, but this has scared away development of that I am sure. This applies to ANY project, any typology - not just a multi-family construct. While admirable, this sort of regulation isn’t conducive to further promoting the isle as a viable investment area. And - while affordability is extremely important, Galveston needs meaningful investment and not just from locals. As is too often the case - I feel Galveston cannot get out of its own way.
  23. @Reefmonkey I should have stayed out of this discussion altogether, as I really don’t care either way. I should add you seemingly took a defensive approach with my comment(s). I understand that the Galveston sub-forum has devolved into some ...tense replies here and there. I’m not here to challenge your opinion, or that of others - everyone is welcome to express what they think.
  24. Yes I’m aware of those developments. They’ve been around for years. I think the assumed “large manmade body of water” was a Crystal Lagoon or similar.
  25. The idea of a large body of water that is manmade that is inviting and perhaps a part of a larger resort setting would be good for Galveston. Instead... we’re getting that in... Texas City!!
×
×
  • Create New...