GreenStreet: Mixed-Use Development At 1201 Fannin St.

[WesternGulf]

Why go downtown when you can go to the mall?

Around 200,000 people work downtown. In any case, the city does not provide an environment in the central business district where people would want to live close to work because task such as shopping and other necessities cannot be done. I believe I mentioned Houston being quite the doughnut of a city as far as activity not too long ago. I rather shop somewhere that is self-sufficient supported by a community that supports the centralization of a city rather than a mall on the fringes of the metropolitan area that will probably close down in a few decades and become another Greenspoint, Northline, Almeda, etc. I agree with desirous. It is a vicious cycle. Malls that anchor new suburban communities do nothing but decentralize cities even more.

Edited July 31, 2008 by WesternGulf

[livincinco]

Around 200,000 people work downtown. In any case, the city does not provide an environment in the central business district where people would want to live close to work because task such as shopping and other necessities cannot be done. I believe I mentioned Houston being quite the doughnut of a city as far as activity not too long ago. I rather shop somewhere that is self-sufficient supported by a community that supports the centralization of a city rather than a mall on the fringes of the metropolitan area that will probably close down in a few decades and become another Greenspoint, Northline, Almeda, etc. I agree with desirous. It is a vicious cycle. Malls that anchor new suburban communities do nothing but decentralize cities even more.

I'm not sure I understand why those two lifestyles have to be mutually exclusive, especially in a city as large as Houston.

The most recent statistic that I found showed that about 7.5% of employment in Houston was in the CBD. Apply that proportionately to the population and that would be a vibrant downtown population of about 450,000 with more than 5 million that could still live in the suburbs.

[desirous]

Why go downtown when you can go to the mall?

Malls are on the decline, at least within the Beltway. "Town centers" are all the rage. Downtown, if developed correctly, could end up being a whopper of a "town center."

[memebag]

I rather shop somewhere that is self-sufficient supported by a community that supports the centralization of a city rather than a mall on the fringes of the metropolitan area that will probably close down in a few decades and become another Greenspoint, Northline, Almeda, etc.

OK, you would rather do that, but most folks wouldn't. Most people want less density, not more.

Malls are on the decline, at least within the Beltway. "Town centers" are all the rage. Downtown, if developed correctly, could end up being a whopper of a "town center."

There are "town centers" within the beltway? I can't think of any. Anyway, a "town center" is just a mall without a roof.

[Trae]

^^CityCentre son.

[crunchtastic]

There was a full page ad yesterday--can't remember if it was the Press or the Chron:

House of Blues opens in October and an event schedule will be published in a couple of weeks.

[C2H]

I see what membag is saying, but I don't agree with it. I uncderstand Density creates gridlock, traffic, longer waiting lines at shops and restaurants, etc. But that's the difference between a CITY and a small TOWN. If you want a town atmosphere, don't live in the city. You can't speak for everybody and say that's not what most people want. On the flip side, Density also helps create the vibrant feel in the city.

When people come to a city, they don't want to have to drive 15 miles from one attraction to the next. I was quite disappointed that Houston had such a lousy downtown area in terms of activities, although it's making a turnaround. Denver, Colorado has done a very good job with its downtown area. If Houston could at least Denver's success, i'll be happy. Houston will never be New York though.

[musicman]

On the flip side, Density also helps create the vibrant feel in the city.

when i cut thru freedman's town a few weeks ago, i'm not sure vibrant is what i was feeling.

[memebag]

I see what membag is saying, but I don't agree with it. I uncderstand Density creates gridlock, traffic, longer waiting lines at shops and restaurants, etc. But that's the difference between a CITY and a small TOWN. If you want a town atmosphere, don't live in the city. You can't speak for everybody and say that's not what most people want. On the flip side, Density also helps create the vibrant feel in the city.

I'm not speaking for everyone, but I can show historical evidence that the majority of people want less density. In ancient times, cities like Rome had densities inside the walls far greater than any modern cities. The wealthy bought villas surrounded by vegetation outside the walls (suburbs and exurbs) to get away from the congestion. The trend continued, and as technology allowed, more and more people were able to follow them. The result is a general trend toward flatter density/distance curves.

When people come to a city, they don't want to have to drive 15 miles from one attraction to the next.

Most people want to live in freestanding houses surrounded by lawns and commute to work. That's why so many of us do that. The distance between "attractions" has little impact on our decisions about where to live and where to work.

That comment makes me think you're talking about tourists, not residents. Are you?

I was quite disappointed that Houston had such a lousy downtown area in terms of activities, although it's making a turnaround. Denver, Colorado has done a very good job with its downtown area. If Houston could at least Denver's success, i'll be happy. Houston will never be New York though.

New York's density curves continue to flatten, so New York will never be New York, either. Houston is an example of where cities are going, not where they have been.

Edited August 1, 2008 by memebag

[C2H]

when i cut thru freedman's town a few weeks ago, i'm not sure vibrant is what i was feeling.

C'mon man, Let's be sensible. Freedman's town is a historic area where freed slaves lived. Impoverished people and houses dominate the area, with exception of the Fourth Ward regentrification efforts within this last decade.

Edited August 1, 2008 by C2H

[ricco67]

I'm not speaking for everyone, but I can show historical evidence that the majority of people want less density. In ancient times, cities like Rome had densities inside the walls far greater than any modern cities. The wealthy bought villas surrounded by vegetation outside the walls (suburbs and exurbs) to get away from the congestion. The trend continued, and as technology allowed, more and more people were able to follow them. The result is a general trend toward flatter density/distance curves.

Most people want to live in freestanding houses surrounded by lawns and commute to work. That's why so many of us do that. The distance between "attractions" has little impact on our decisions about where to live and where to work.

That comment makes me think you're talking about tourists, not residents. Are you?

Don't speak for ME when it comes to wanting a freestanding home. I tried it a few times in my life and I hated it. I hated the lawn work, the dealing with general maintenance and upkeep.

No.

I don't know if "tourists" is the demographic that is appropriate, "business Travelers" would probably be the people that this sort of thing would be appealing to. But We've beat THAT conversation into the ground.

[memebag]

Don't speak for ME when it comes to wanting a freestanding home. I tried it a few times in my life and I hated it. I hated the lawn work, the dealing with general maintenance and upkeep.

No.

I'm not attempting to speak for you. I'm not even speaking for myself. I'm talking about the general population and historical trends. The number of freestanding houses with yards has been continuously increasing since steam power started to bring the cost of transportation down.

Go to Google Earth and look at any major city. You see all those rows of single family houses surrounding them? That's physical proof that as soon as people could afford to buy them, live in them and commute from them, they bought them. That doesn't mean everyone wants one, just most people.

[Trae]

Like Los Angeles?

[memebag]

Like Los Angeles?

Absolutely. Los Angeles led the US in suburban development. Look at the satellite views of the entire southern CA region and you'll see the overwhelming majority of people live in freestanding houses surrounded by small yards.

[lockmat]

small yards.

if you could even call them that.

[Trae]

Absolutely. Los Angeles led the US in suburban development. Look at the satellite views of the entire southern CA region and you'll see the overwhelming majority of people live in freestanding houses surrounded by small yards.

Not really. I mean, look at the photo I just posted. That's what most Angelinos live in. Los Angeles is pretty dense despite what people say, and the single-family homes in the city (not the ones in the mountain), are in a strict grid pattern and are close together. Great transit nearby, too (but the Bay Area kicks LA's ass in transit).

Edited August 1, 2008 by Trae

[livincinco]

When people come to a city, they don't want to have to drive 15 miles from one attraction to the next. I was quite disappointed that Houston had such a lousy downtown area in terms of activities, although it's making a turnaround. Denver, Colorado has done a very good job with its downtown area. If Houston could at least Denver's success, i'll be happy. Houston will never be New York though.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you've got everything you need/want within walking distance and don't need a car, that's great. If you have/need a car, I don't think that the difference between 5 miles and 15 miles matters too much to people.

[memebag]

Not really. I mean, look at the photo I just posted. That's what most Angelinos live in. Los Angeles is pretty dense despite what people say, and the single-family homes in the city (not the ones in the mountain), are in a strict grid pattern and are close together. Great transit nearby, too (but the Bay Area kicks LA's ass in transit).

That photo is hardly representative of where most people live in that area. Zoom out a few miles and look again.

[C2H]

I don't think that's necessarily true. If you've got everything you need/want within walking distance and don't need a car, that's great. If you have/need a car, I don't think that the difference between 5 miles and 15 miles matters too much to people.

Just remember Essence fest 2006 for an example. Maybe what I said in my post wasn't COMPLETELY true but that is a complaint that I hear of Houston alot from both business travelers and tourist. They say it's too spread out and they waste half their trip driving. And i was being quite generous about the 15 mile claim. It feels more like 30.

I'm not saying Houston is the only city that does this, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Phoenix, and plenty of other cities have destinations far out. Many of you may disagree with me on this one but I primarily judge a city by the success of their downtown/ inner city area. I am giving downtown credit for it's "comeback" that's currently in the making.

[musicman]

Many of you may disagree with me on this one but I primarily judge a city by the success of their downtown/ inner city area.

from the recent articles in various national publications, sounds like they disagree with you too. there is no reason to drive long distances to do things in houston unless you want to.

[C2H]

from the recent articles in various national publications, sounds like they disagree with you too. there is no reason to drive long distances to do things in houston unless you want to.

care to post any sources or links?

[musicman]

care to post any sources or links?

haif has several recent articles posted....houston is quite successful according to their criteria

Edited August 1, 2008 by musicman

[desirous]

There are "town centers" within the beltway? I can't think of any. Anyway, a "town center" is just a mall without a roof.

Most "town centers" are mixed-use developments.

CityCentre. BLVD Place. High Street. Regent Square. Oaks District (sp?). Even West Ave roughly fits the mold. All the new upscale retail inside the Beltway are going into "town center" developments. In the investment profession, past behavior does not reflect future performance. In cities, past development does not reflect future growth. It is a fallacy to assume continued reduction in density just because that occurred in the past; a fluctuating equilibrium of density may be in play, and right now it is shifting toward city centers. Every major city is experiencing rapid core growth -- are you sure you're speaking for others, and not yourself?

A big chunk of Los Angeles County is denser than Neartown Houston neighborhoods. I'd say at an entire Metro Houston's worth of LA County residents live in neighborhoods denser than the Inner Loop here.

Edited August 2, 2008 by desirous

[WesternGulf]

As far as density, density works when the infrastructure is there. Houston still has worse traffic and gridlock than cities with higher densities.

[TheNiche]

Most "town centers" are mixed-use developments.

CityCentre. BLVD Place. High Street. Regent Square. Oaks District (sp?). Even West Ave roughly fits the mold. All the new upscale retail inside the Beltway are going into "town center" developments.

The operative word, here, is "upscale". I'll readily conceed that the majority of people would prefer living in a dense walkable urban environment. How many can pay the price...much less are willing to? Density is expensive...all that much more so as it is steadily achieved.

In cities, past development does not reflect future growth. It is a fallacy to assume continued reduction in density just because that occurred in the past; a fluctuating equilibrium of density may be in play, and right now it is shifting toward city centers. Every major city is experiencing rapid core growth -- are you sure you're speaking for others, and not yourself?

A big chunk of Los Angeles County is denser than Neartown Houston neighborhoods. I'd say at an entire Metro Houston's worth of LA County residents live in neighborhoods denser than the Inner Loop here.

Nothing has changed that affects the difference in construction costs between low-density and high-density development. Actually, the price of wood products has declined even as the prices of concrete and metals, critical for high-density development--continue upward. Also, to the extent that urban areas have benefitted from recent high transportation costs, the impact is offset by falling single-family lot prices. Also, to the extent that urban areas may have benefitted from better access to transit and somewhat higher use, suburban areas look more desirable because of considerably less congestion...it doesn't take the removal of very many cars from the road to make a big dent in peak-period congestion.

Historical trends may not be an indicator of future performance, but current conditions do affect future performance. Current conditions indicate that high-density development has achieved low-cost superiority.

A big chunk of Los Angeles County is denser than Neartown Houston neighborhoods. I'd say at an entire Metro Houston's worth of LA County residents live in neighborhoods denser than the Inner Loop here.

You are correct. The LA metro area is also economically stagnant, second only to Detroit in the number of jobs that are being lost. Probably not the best place to stage a comparison against Houston, which is generating more jobs than any other metro area in the nation...the bulk of them in the low-cost suburbs, nearer to where the vast majority of our residents live--and accessible via reverse commute to the rest. It's very convenient, don't you agree?

As far as density, density works when the infrastructure is there. Houston still has worse traffic and gridlock than cities with higher densities.

NYC has the highest average commute time in the nation. California doesn't rank well, either.

[citizen4rmptown]

As far as density, density works when the infrastructure is there. Houston still has worse traffic and gridlock than cities with higher densities.

Forbes 2008 Worst Cities for Commuters

article:http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/24/cities-commute-fuel-forbeslife-cx_mw_0424realestate.html

i added the 2007 estimate population density

(a lot of cutting and pasting so forgive me if i made a mistake)

10.San Francisco-16,380/sq mi (6,324.4/km

Edited August 2, 2008 by citizen4rmptown

[musicman]

As far as density, density works when the infrastructure is there. Houston still has worse traffic and gridlock than cities with higher densities.

and this response is helpful because?

[memebag]

Every major city is experiencing rapid core growth -- are you sure you're speaking for others, and not yourself?

Yes. I'm reading Robert Bruegmann's "Sprawl" right now. He's show that density fluctuates in spots as neighborhoods grow, age and gentrify, but he also shows that if you look at average density vs distance from the city center over hundreds of years, it's clear that the curve is flattening. It isn't a recent trend, and there's no evidence it is reversing. Even as gentrification pulls people back toward the center of cities, they tend to take up more space than the people they replace. It's a fascinating book and I highly recommend it.

[citizen4rmptown]

and this response is helpful because?

i dont know if you're talking to me ,but if you were it was to show that cities with higher pop. density

can have a harder time getting to work than houstonians and have better traffic

Edited August 2, 2008 by citizen4rmptown

[WesternGulf]

and this response is helpful because?

Most people want less density, not more

I uncderstand Density creates gridlock, traffic, longer waiting lines at shops and restaurants, etc

[citizen4rmptown]

whoah ,some of us dont even have to type anymore

we have other haifer's answer questions with quotes

brilliant!

[musicman]

i dont know if you're talking to me ,but if you were it was to show that cities with higher pop. density

can have a harder time getting to work than houstonians and have better traffic

and the data you posted also has less dense cities with worse problems.

Edited August 2, 2008 by musicman

[HtownWxBoy]

This is the correct forum to discuss 'Houston Pavilions' isn't it??

[C2H]

Yeah but we're spinning off Houston Pavilions and how it could possibly bring residents and shopping back downtown which would spawn future developments, thus creating a higher density both downtown and inside the loop. So it is a relative topic.

[C2H]

I'm in Denver Colorado this weekend and I am nothing short of amazed on how active downtown is. I knew it was always active but it seems like they're adding more things. The Nightlife here is awesome.

And Denver's density is even about 150p/sq mile less than Houston. So maybe memebag was on to something in her post. Denver is a model that shows that you can have an active city core without having the highest density numbers. But again, Denver doesn't sprawl like Houston and has a far better mass transit system.

Edited August 2, 2008 by C2H

[Houston19514]

As far as density, density works when the infrastructure is there. Houston still has worse traffic and gridlock than cities with higher densities.

?? Care to cite some meaningful examples?

Edited August 2, 2008 by Houston19514

[Trae]

I'm in Denver Colorado this weekend and I am nothing short of amazed on how active downtown is. I knew it was always active but it seems like they're adding more things. The Nightlife here is awesome.

And Denver's density is even about 150p/sq mile less than Houston. So maybe memebag was on to something in her post. Denver is a model that shows that you can have an active city core without having the highest density numbers. But again, Denver doesn't sprawl like Houston and has a far better mass transit system.

Well, Denver is better light rail wise for now, but that's it.

[HtownWxBoy]

Yeah but we're spinning off Houston Pavilions and how it could possibly bring residents and shopping back downtown which would spawn future developments, thus creating a higher density both downtown and inside the loop. So it is a relative topic.

Ooo yes, of course, I see.

[ricco67]

Ooo yes, of course, I see.

<elaborate Jazz Handsy movements>

Exactly, it's all intertwined in a cosmo sort of way.

</elaborate Jazz Handsy movements>

[livincinco]

<elaborate Jazz Handsy movements>

Exactly, it's all intertwined in a cosmo sort of way.

</elaborate Jazz Handsy movements>

Six degrees of Houston Pavilions?

[HtownWxBoy]

<elaborate Jazz Handsy movements>

Exactly, it's all intertwined in a cosmo sort of way.

</elaborate Jazz Handsy movements>

he he he

[C2H]

Well, Denver is better light rail wise for now, but that's it.

Have you been to Denver?

[madmann101]

Houston's downtown has lots of potential become very active and the park is a GREAT start. Houston Pavilions is what is going to get more pedestrians walking downtown, when they walk from the park to the pavilions,etc. I think Houston's downtown a little cramp though and the streets or sidewalks should be made a little wider to give people more space.

Also public transit is a must if you want more people walking around and the density going on in midtown is good, except I just wish there wasn't so many gated communities and parking garages. There should be more street parking, I mean it wouldn't kill anyone to walk atleast 10-20ft to get to their homes.

I'd rather Houston lose all the land outside of the loop and galleria area than keep it because I feel if that is done, more people would move closer to the city center.

[totheskies]

^Yeah, and for those of us that don't have rail bias, BUSES count as public transit. But Houston's bus service is just too sporadic and infrequent. If METRO decided to step up to the plate and run the bus routes every 5 or 6 minutes, our public transit would be great.

[BigSky]

It is interesting that you are comparing, Denver Pavilions to Houston Pavilions. I've spoken to some friends who grew up in Denver and they stated that Denver Pavilions kicked off the renaissiance of Denver Downtown. They said after dP was in place, a signficant amount of development came up around it. I think HP will have the same type of impact that dP had on Denver. With OPP, HP, DG, DGT and MSP all occuring within a year of each other, I can see how this will bring a signifcant amount of development around HP.

[memebag]

I'd rather Houston lose all the land outside of the loop and galleria area than keep it because I feel if that is done, more people would move closer to the city center.

Huh? You're wishing for some sort of donut shaped asteroid impact?

Why do people pick Houston as a residence if they want everyone crammed into downtown? It's never going to happen.

[desirous]

Huh? You're wishing for some sort of donut shaped asteroid impact?

Why do people pick Houston as a residence if they want everyone crammed into downtown? It's never going to happen.

It's called wishful thinking. Every city has sprawl around it... except maybe Hong Kong.

Enjoying density does not mean killing suburban growth. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

[WesternGulf]

?? Care to cite some meaningful examples?

From the same study citizen posted, here is a prime example how traditionally built cities, that usually tend to inevitably have higher densities than decentralized cities like Houston, are more commuter friendly:

Varying population densities and development patterns in the nation's cities make gaging efficiency difficult. In Boston, for example, jobs are mostly concentrated in and around the city center. In Los Angeles, offices are more spread out. That means Boston's commuter rail and "T" systems, part of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, are better able to put area commuters closer to their jobs than an identical train system could do for Los Angeles commuters.

Source: http://www.forbesautos.com/news/headlines/...ter-cities.html

[Trae]

Have you been to Denver?

Yeah.

[TheNiche]

From the same study citizen posted, here is a prime example how traditionally built cities, that usually tend to inevitably have higher densities than decentralized cities like Houston, are more commuter friendly:

Varying population densities and development patterns in the nation's cities make gaging efficiency difficult. In Boston, for example, jobs are mostly concentrated in and around the city center. In Los Angeles, offices are more spread out. That means Boston's commuter rail and "T" systems, part of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, are better able to put area commuters closer to their jobs than an identical train system could do for Los Angeles commuters.

Source: http://www.forbesautos.com/news/headlines/...ter-cities.html

According to the Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey, there is no statistically meaningful difference (approx. 6 to 12 seconds) in average commute times between the Los Angeles, Boston, or Houston metropolitan areas.

I don't dispute the higher efficacy of a train system in a more centralized city as opposed to a more decentralized city, however I would dispute that that necessarily makes them more commuter-friendly in a general sense. Not many people actually ride trains. Even in Boston, only about 11% of people commute using any kind of public transportation.