Texasota

Eh, Stephen Holl is pretty much a starchitect, and his work is not uninspiring. It doesn't photograph fantastically, but there's a subtlety and attention to natural light that makes for amazing spaces in person. My experience with his buildings is limited to his expansion of the architecture building at the University of Minnesota, but coming from that space down to Johnson's excremental postmodern abortion of a Ledoux scribble was quite a change. Here's a terrible exterior shot: My biggest concern has to do with the fact that this new building is supposed to unite MFAH's campus. The Rapson Hall addition integrates beautifully with the original Modernist building, but it's relationship to its greater context is more...questionable.

Yeah...that sounds disgusting.

Tom Wait > Bob Dylan. Fact.

ARGH!!!! The HDR is just a tad ...overdone.

Asia Market is quite good and their prices are a bit lower than average I would say.

I just ate at Liberty Kitchen. That was pretty awesome.

Nick_G, I really appreciate your commitment to staying active and involved in both this forum and your neighborhood. It's certainly true that this city needs that sort of dedication to ensure that future development is largely positive. I completely agree with you on the issue of the trains- I think the University line's link from UH to the Galleria will be vital, and additional lines to better connect the inner loop neighborhoods will *hopefully* follow reasonably soon after. What I have a hard time with is the idea that Uptown, of all neighborhoods, should serve as a positive example of urban development. Is it *relatively* dense, by the standards of this city? Yes. Is it, by virtue of proximity and well-maintained sidewalks, relatively walkable? Yes. It has in place a variety of advantages that, in the long run could help make it a very pleasant, walkable, upscale neighborhood, but it is a very difficult neighborhood to like. It has zero local character- when people call it a suburban version of downtown its partially because of the dominance of national chains. The fact that everything is contained in a strip center doesnt help. A better example of genuine walkability would be what's happening in Midtown, particularly on the West side. Rebuilt sidewalks, mixed use buildings, and a surprising variety of local businesses have started to really revitalize Midtown without completely destroying what was already there. Milam is still pretty much Little Saigon, and the renovation work on HCC will help beautify the neighborhood while maintaining support for people of a variety of income levels. I guess my point is: Uptown does not represent *my* Houston. Messy sidewalks with exposed powerlines may not be pretty, but they don't equal "third world."

Wow, ok. Yes, I'm familiar with Uptown, and I'm intensely glad that I never have any reason to go there. I stand by my statement that, from a cyclist's perspective, it is simply not well integrated with the city's better neighborhoods. You don't seem to realize that those of who live in Montrose or Midtown live here because we like it here, and the absolute last thing I would want is for my neighborhood to be anything like Uptown.

I ride a bicycle as my primary means of transportation, and I would never seriously consider riding alone into Uptown. Honestly it starts to get sketchy once you get west of Kirby. Honestly I can't think of the last time I needed to go to Uptown though. Possibly to go to REI?

Nick_G, I think part of your problem was just wording. Honestly, my first reaction to your post was pretty negative as well. Simultaneously talking about homeless people as a problem to be removed AND painting all women as irrationally afraid of them? You apparently know a very different group of women than I do. On top of that, you said something positive about Uptown. That should be obviously unacceptable.

Not to butt in, but I'm curious about your statement (addressed to Nick_G) that there is a visibly concentrated homeless population downtown. In my experience it's much more specific that that- there is a visibly concentrated homeless population underneath the overpass separating midtown from downtown. That population (in combination with the intrense smell of urine) creates, for me at least, much more of a barrier around downtown. I am reasonably comfortable riding my bike there, but I would only walk if absolutely necessary. Once I actually get downtown, the homeless population has never seemed particularly large or bothersome, at least compared to other cities I've lived in.

"shopping center" does not sound like a good sign Tends to be a euphamism for "strip mall"

Eh, the thing is: Trader Joe's is NOT Walmart. Yes, they are likey to generate some traffic, but they're not on anything like the same scale. Most TJ's locations are quite small- 20,000 square feet is standard. I have no idea how big the Heights Walmart will be, but it's safe to say it will be over 100,000 square feet. And yes, people react differently to a grocery store than they do to Walmart. I'm sorry, but there are plenty of reasons to dislike Walmart that are unique to that particular corporation. Everything from their treatment of employees to the unique unpleasantness (subjective of course) of their stores can provide additional ammunition for a reasonable person.

"in my opinion??" Yes, how bizzarrely unprofessional.

Not to speak for Wernicke, but I wonder if he meant the life expectancy of the building?

I really don't understand the "downtown is sketchy at night" comments. That hasn't been true for year. It gets a bit dead, but I'm not sure that qualifies as "sketchy."

Fair point. "Urbanism" is not terribly meaningful. Density? Orienting buildings toward the street rather than parking lots? Interacting with the existing Heights Blvd. bike trail in a meaningful way? These wouldn't cost much, if any, money (well, I suppose they might have to hire an architect, and I refuse to believe an architect was responsible for designing this develoment), but it would make it much more difficult to argue that the developer wasn't at least trying to respond to neighborhood context and concerns. Ultimately, I'm mostly just accusing the developer of being lazy and disinterested, which isn't exactly unusual, but is always disappointing.

Yes, Michelle Obama is SUCH a hypocrite, with her advocacy of healthy lifestyles yet fantastic physique. Anyway, I'm not sure I buy that the RUDH people are hypocrites just because their homes are new construction. Two of those houses are completely appropriate to their neighborhoods, and that in and of itself contributes to the city's urban fabric. It is possible to support new construction while also wanting that construction to be somewhat responsible. If this development made even the slightest attempt at urbanism, I don't think people would be *quite* as upset. Admittedly the anchor tenant is an enormous part of the problem, but the fact that they have shown zero interest in neighborhood concerns is an even bigger problem. All that being said, the Koehler St. house is absolutely hideous. It is also probably incredibly poorly built, and will become a maintenance nightmare for Mr. Urbano in a few years.

I realize that that's the official map, but it is truly bizarre. They just *had* to include the Menil somehow so they grabbed a chunk of Montrose/St. Thomas.

There have been multiple studies done indicating that eyes on the sidewalk/public spaces decrease crime rates. Starting with Jane Jacobs' work, this is a concept that has been reinforced by subsequent researchers.

Admittedly veering away from Midtown for a minute, but: wait. what? Mixed use at Dallas and Waugh? That would be fantastic, particularly with the apartments replacing the Tavern, but where? The pad sites at the NW and SE corners aren't that old, but I'd love to see them gone... Also, on second thought, I might have to argue that that sort of is Midtown. It's not *exactly* Montrose. It's not River Oaks. It's obviously not Washington. What exactly is it? ?

Admittedly veering away from Midtown for a minute, but: wait. what? Mixed use at Dallas and Waugh? That would be fantastic, particularly with the apartments replacing the Tavern, but where? The pad sites at the NW and SE corners aren't that old, but I'd love to see them gone... Also, on second thought, I might have to argue that that sort of is Midtown. It's not *exactly* Montrose. It's not River Oaks. It's obviously not Washington. What exactly is it? ?

Admittedly veering away from Midtown for a minute, but: wait. what? Mixed use at Dallas and Waugh? That would be fantastic, particularly with the apartments replacing the Tavern, but where? The pad sites at the NW and SE corners aren't that old, but I'd love to see them gone... Also, on second thought, I might have to argue that that sort of is Midtown. It's not *exactly* Montrose. It's not River Oaks. It's obviously not Washington. What exactly is it? ?

Wow that would be an enormous waste of that site. Especially once Post finishes its expansion- it would be a mirror image of the horrible little CVS on the East side of one of the more walkable developments in the city.

I don't think we're in quite the same situation as Detroit. Part of Downtown's problem is simply lack of housing stock. I would love to live downtown, particularly once Phoenicia opens, but there just isn't anywhere for me to live. The Downtown infrastructure is improving steadily, and the additional light rail lines will help minimize some of the compromises involved in living there, so I hope a wider range of housing will start going up. One Park Place is a nice start, but there needs to be a broad range of options including stuff that might be affordable for students. There is so much vacant land still that I wouldn't even object to townhouses in the southeast corner.