Jump to content
Dominax

Downtown vs Galleria Area

Recommended Posts

HOUSTONTOWER.gif

HOUSTON, TEXAS population is grow up over to be near of 2,150,000 people today and more with that may people of a city of having 2 downtowns and more business here in Houston.

HOUSTON has a very large urban size land area of many skyscrapers all over. Houston in the early 1900's wasn't near as popular back then as Philadelphia was much popular back then now today its not. HOUSTON has taken place of over 10 and more large cities in America since that time.

HOUSTON should have plans on building more skyscrapers for the future by having ideas of skyscrapers like Shanghai China. HOUSTON should have more and better plans than just skyscrapers. HOUSTON is so large but this city has only one metro city with a population just over 100,000 citizens Pasadena.

HOUSTON, TX is large but this city has the smallest Six Flags the is. This city can make good plans for a bigger Six Flags and a beach somewhere on the gulf.

This city has had building and remodeling better freeways for the city.

HOUSTON should not just planned for many skyscrapers but also an tall OBSERVATION TOWER SOMEWHERE PUT INTO DOWNTOWN FOR ALWAYS BING THE LARGEST CITY IN TEXAS to make Texas and the city be more interesting.

Edited by Dominax
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D HOW WELL CAN THIS LOOK FOR THE FUTURISM DOWNTOWN OF HOUSTON

VIEW 1 OF THE TOWER FROM NORTH OF I-45

[url="http://photobucket.com/albums/v707/dominax2004/?action=view

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things, why is it called Asia Plaza?

Second, does this bring back any memories of Trillion Dollar Tower? I can't remember the posters name though. I think he also did some kind of apartments over 59 or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

there aren't any height restriction on Downtown due to Hobby Airport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some concerns voiced in the 80s about tall buildings interfering with Hobby, when plans for an 80 or 82 story tower were debuted. But, I never heard that there was any restriction either.

I always thought that was funny. What's the difference between 900 feet and 1100 feet? If a plane's that close, you're in trouble anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true.

Actually most of the flight patterns come in between Uptown and Downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So true.

Actually most of the flight patterns come in between Uptown and Downtown.

yeah thats how i always end up comin in...that or ill circle round over the med center and land...plus i thought since 9-11 there was no flying over downtown...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The misconception of a height restriction downtown has been well documented here. There is no 1000 ft limit. In fact, JPM is taller than that, anyway. It is much more expensive to go over that 1000 ft. line -- that may serve as a stronger restriction than any government restriction.

yeah thats how i always end up comin in...that or ill circle round over the med center and land...plus i thought since 9-11 there was no flying over downtown...

If you've been to an Astros game lately, you know this isn't true. Planes now fly directly over Minute Maid Park much lower than I have ever seen them in 4 years of going to the park. Last week, two went over at about 1500 ft., by my estimation, en route to landing at Hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that the FAA height limit was a misconception. According to David McCombs' History of Houston, the FAA in the 1970's put a height limit of 1,000 ft on the Houston skyline. The same thing was mentioned in Ada Louise Huxtable's book on skyscrapers in the early 80's - in a section on the Bank of the Southwest Tower she mentions that the design has been rejected by the FAA, that they petitioned and were rejected again, and that as the office market falls in Houston, they are trying to figure out what to do.

As for the JPMorganChase tower, I read somewhere that it was originally designed to be 80 stories, but they changed it to 75 to meet the 1,000 ft restriction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't aware that the FAA height limit was a misconception.  According to David McCombs' History of Houston, the FAA in the 1970's put a height limit of 1,000 ft on the Houston skyline.  The same thing was mentioned in Ada Louise Huxtable's book on skyscrapers in the early 80's - in a section on the Bank of the Southwest Tower she mentions that the design has been rejected by the FAA, that they petitioned and were rejected again, and that as the office market falls in Houston, they are trying to figure out what to do.

As for the JPMorganChase tower, I read somewhere that it was originally designed to be 80 stories, but they changed it to 75 to meet the 1,000 ft restriction.

Thank you,

i thought i had read something about that. i am glad i am not going insane. Well, at least not regarding this category. :blink:

m

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H-Town:

The Bank of the Southwest Tower was to be the tallest tower, is that correct? It was to have a "Star of Texas" at its crown, all lit up, for everyone to see.

Is this the same one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I am not sure which is true but here are a few replys that I remembered from an older thread.

Clase tower was originally going to be 85 floors, but with Hobby airport and the FAA, they decided it would be better to just stop at 75.  Just imagine though if it were 10 floors higher. It would register out to about 1,102 feet or so. That would have passed some of those buildings like the one in Atl. and L.A. in front of it.  That would make it taller than the chrysler building in NYC. B)

and in response

No, thats a false Urban Lengend that is thought to be fact. The Texas Commerce Tower (Chase Tower, JP Morgan Chase Tower) was originally suppose to be 60 floors. Hence the Observation deck on the 60th floor. The inital design really went up, and down... Skyscrapers come in 1,000 ft packages, and they had planned for the Chase tower to be below it. But since the office demand was so high, they added a few floors for the final rendering... It could have been 80 floors, even a 100, the FAA has nothing to do with it. They were worried about the communications equipment coming out of Hobby, which slowly rises at a certain angle. But infact, the "beam" is really somewhat west of Downtown. The FAA thing was a rumor, it was never intential to be 80 floors, or as you say, 85... It was originally planned to be 60, but turned out to be 75.

As for the Location of the BoTSWT, it was to be built on the surface parking lot behind 1 Shell Plaza.

Here

Actually, thats not such an exact picture, but its the surface parking lot behind 1-Shell Plaza, Its surounded by Rusk, Milam, Louisiana, and Walker Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the one I was talking about.

http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=103046

Would have topped out at 1401 feet and 82 floors.  I remember debate about height, but I believe the oil bust is what really killed it.

I LOVE that one. I always think of that as the one that got away. I sort of reminds me of the Williams Tower. In some of my earlier posts, when i go on and on about a skyscraper with a spire for Houston, i think fondly of that one. It sort of reminds me of a building in Chicago and in Philly. At least, the same sort of design.

I HATE the oil industry and what it is doing to our country, BUT, i do secretly long for an 80's like rebirth in Houston- perhaps something good can come of it. Like a new 1000ft+ tower in DT or UT. :D

m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always loved the design of that building too. It would be nice to have a spire in the skyline. The one thing that would have been cool though if it was built is if they had added about 10 more floors. This would have made it substantially taller than Sears making it tallest in the world. I wonder if they would have tried that if they had actually gone through with building the building.

On a related note I had spoken with the owners of that lot a few years back. I want to say I remember them contemplating building it at the same or reduced height. I didn't figure they would do it at the time and considering the current office market it really seems like a pipe dream. It would have been cool had it been built but maybe even better designs may surface in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always loved the design of that building too.  It would be nice to have a spire in the skyline.  The one thing that would have been cool though if it was built is if they had added about 10 more floors.  This would have made it substantially taller than Sears making it tallest in the world.  I wonder if they would have tried that if they had actually gone through with building the building.

On a related note I had spoken with the owners of that lot a few years back.  I want to say I remember them contemplating building it at the same or reduced height.  I didn't figure they would do it at the time and considering the current office market it really seems like a pipe dream.  It would have been cool had it been built but maybe even better designs may surface in the future.

Regarding competing heights for skyscrapers- i often wonder if some of it is political. What i mean (not to slight my beloved Houston in any way) if East coast big wigs will not "let" any other city besides NY or Chicago have towers which will beat out the Sears or the future New World Trade Center... OR if an architect would be wooed harder by those two cities making it almost irresistable to construct them there. Also, i think since 9/11 it is now all about strength and ingenuity and creativity not height- much to my dismay. I know Asia, specifically China is going through a construction BOOM like 20th century USA, but even though many are tall, and a few will break several height records, 80% are no more than 50-60 stories tall- they just look futuristic.

So, i wonder if that trend will continue here in the States as well. Not so much a competition for the tallest- but the more structurally sound and experimentation with glass and steel and new technologies in design capabilities.

m. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding competing heights for skyscrapers- i often wonder if some of it is political.  What i mean (not to slight my beloved Houston in any way) if East coast big wigs will not "let" any other city besides NY or Chicago have towers which will beat out the Sears or the future New World Trade Center... OR if an architect would be wooed harder by those two cities making it almost irresistable to construct them there.  Also, i think since 9/11 it is now all about strength and ingenuity and creativity not height- much to my dismay.  I know Asia, specifically China is going through a construction BOOM like 20th century USA, but even though many are tall, and a few will break several height records, 80% are no more than 50-60 stories tall- they just look futuristic.

So, i wonder if that trend will continue here in the States as well.  Not so much a competition for the tallest- but the more structurally sound and experimentation with glass and steel and new technologies in design capabilities.

m.  :)

I am not sure what you mean by the east coast keeping supertalls in only Chicago and NY. Oddly enough I think trump has wanted to build a supertall in NY but keeps getting opposition there. Now he is building one that is about 1350 ft. in chicago. This doesn't really refute your point but it is interesting. Actually though Miami is supposedly getting a couple 1200 footers from what I hear.

Sears isn't even WTB anymore (though it still is in the US). Also regarding ingenuity I would say NYs new Bank of America tower is pretty different. I believe it will either be the first or lagest building to receive platinum LEED rating (I am pretty sure I heard this) plus it is over a thousand feet so you can combine the two ingenuity and height. Another example is Calvatrava's (I believe it is his) 80 south st. tower. Also tall and a very different design.

I think for the next decade at least America will not be a major candidate for WTBs (mostly depending on if Burj Dubai is able to be built) while Asia still seems to be building without stop. They can only build so long though and if they build to mutch the market could drop out. Regarding architecture I like the route America is currently headed. Some people say that they wish America would build less bland towers like those you may find in Asia. But personally except for a few supertalls (Jin Mao, BOC, Petronas) I do not find the designs to be overly great. There are even some buildings that are downright copies of an American counterpart. I saw a rendering for one somewhere in China I believe that looked exactly like One Liberty Place in philly.

I kind of rambled on through different topics in that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not sure what you mean by the east coast keeping supertalls in only Chicago and NY.  Oddly enough I think trump has wanted to build a supertall in NY but keeps getting opposition there.  Now he is building one that is about 1350 ft. in chicago.  This doesn't really refute your point but it is interesting.  Actually though Miami is supposedly getting a couple 1200 footers from what I hear.

Sears isn't even WTB anymore (though it still is in the US).  Also regarding ingenuity I would say NYs new Bank of America tower is pretty different.  I believe it will either be the first or lagest building to receive platinum LEED rating (I am pretty sure I heard this) plus it is over a thousand feet so you can combine the two ingenuity and height.  Another example is Calvatrava's (I believe it is his) 80 south st. tower.  Also tall and a very different design.

I think for the next decade at least America will not be a major candidate for WTBs (mostly depending on if Burj Dubai is able to be built)  while Asia still seems to be building without stop.  They can only build so long though and if they build to mutch the market could drop out.  Regarding architecture I like the route America is currently headed.  Some people say that they wish America would build less bland towers like those you may find in Asia.  But personally except for a few supertalls (Jin Mao, BOC, Petronas) I do not find the designs to be overly great.  There are even some buildings that are downright copies of an American counterpart.  I saw a rendering for one somewhere in China I believe that looked exactly like One Liberty Place in philly.

I kind of rambled on through different topics in that post.

True, I know the Donald keeps trying to build the "tallest" in any city that will let him. Good for him. And I agree about the Calvatrava- I cannot wait to see it finished. BUT, for instance, look at the redesigned WTC- it is not that i hate it per se, just that the Libenskiend was so original. I know it had a few design modifications and such- but now what do we have? Something that looks very similar to the old WTC- conceived in the 50's and built in the late 60's-early 70's.

And i must contest something- Looking at Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong these days- that is no where near boring-or copied- in my opinion. Time magazine has an article about emerging China- one of there two page spreads is a man in front of just "part" of the Shanghai skyline- It looks incredible!

And yes, the USA has and always will be the innovator of the skyscraper. I guess i just long for the "good old days" (haha i am not very old) or at least when the crane was considered TX's state bird. :D

m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I can handle a super-tall highrise being named after an architect! Not to say I dont think Calatrava's designs are interesting but he certainly doesnt deserve to have a building of that size named after him -- not to mention the whole twisting thing gets me.

The Tribune Building in Chicago (along with others that dont aspire to be so lofty) are the true architectural gems of Chicago -- not the ugly and oversized Sears and Hancock Towers, and AON... couldnt be much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized something...

Houston was the 3rd city on earth, to have a *Skyscraper reach over 1,000 feet.

1. New York City - Chrysler Building - 1930 - 1,046ft.

2. Chicago - John Hancock Center - 1969 - 1,127ft.

3. Houston - JP Morgan Chase Tower - 1982 - 1,002ft.

4. Los Angeles - US Bank Tower - 1989 - 1,018ft.

5. Hong Kong - Bank of China Tower - 1990 - 1,205ft.

6. Atlanta - Bank of America Plaza - 1,023ft. - 1992

7. Pyongyang - Ryugyong Hotel - 1,083ft. - 1992

8. Shenzhen - Shun Hing Square - 1,260ft. - 1996

9. Guangzhou - CITIC Plaza - 1,283ft. - 1997

10. Koahsiung - Tuntex Sky Tower - 1,140ft. - 1997

just a little FUN fact! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I can handle a super-tall highrise being named after an architect! Not to say I dont think Calatrava's designs are interesting but he certainly doesnt deserve to have a building of that size named after him -- not to mention the whole twisting thing gets me.

The Tribune Building in Chicago (along with others that dont aspire to be so lofty) are the true architectural gems of Chicago -- not the ugly and oversized Sears and Hancock Towers, and AON... couldnt be much worse.

Santiago Calatrava's designs are not ment to be terribly pleasing to the eye. I'll agree with you there, however have you ever looked at his work from a different view: the statics of it is remarkable. Look up the meadows museum on SMU's campus. He has a sclupture there that is an engineering masterpeice. It's awesome. I don't like his designs but, he is a brilliant engineer and defies many conventions.

The sky scraper I hate most is the new one in Austin. It looks like something out of Gotham (batman). Its garrish! Ruins the skyline.

Edited by lilcurleyqz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just a personal opinion --- he is a great engineer, but perhaps he is an overated architect.

Just because you can design a building with "wings" that can open and close doesnt mean you should, nor should you even try. Todays architects are to caught up with the highly technical details of their buildings, give me a Barragon over Calatrava anyday!

That said I think he must think of himself as the next Frank L. Wright or atleast his wife does, since it is she who told the proposed buildings owner that "...you know that building will always be known as the Calatrava building..."

That in and of itself is reason enough to hope this building fails - the world already has enough egotists, and architects by nature think of themselves as superior to other humans, we dont need to flaunt it and shouldnt have to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok I am not sure which is true but here are a few replys that I remembered from an older thread.

and in response

I remember when I e-mailed I.M. Pei & Partners... that was fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one Skyscraper that I most lament not building built is Southwest Tower. Sleek lines, great lighting and 1400 feet tall. That's the one that would define our skyline the best. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I love Houston's skyline as it is, the Southwest Tower would have created a pinnacle peak to pullit all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious as to the true height of chase tower. This site has it at 1002 feet, but the houston chronicle had an article listing the true height at 1049 feet.

The Chron probibly got that from the Information thing in the Lobby of the Chase Tower. It does say 1,049ft. But I've hear 1,005ft (305m) or 1,002ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chron probibly got that from the Information thing in the Lobby of the Chase Tower. It does say 1,049ft. But I've hear 1,005ft (305m) or 1,002ft.

Right but a dirty little secret is that the 992' for 1000 Louisiana doesn't measure the penthouse storey on top, whereas Texas Commerce Tower has a flat roof. I measure the penthouse as 14', so that would make Texas Commerce Tower the /second/-tallest building in the state, although still the first thousand-foot building in the world to have been built outside of the two birthplaces of the high-rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyscraper Page says that it's 305.4 meters. How does that convert?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The height of both Chase and WF seem to be a mystery. I've seen two heights listed for WF: 972 and 992. Which is correct? Or is it really even taller than that? I've also heard that WF wants to keep the height of its building a mystery.

It begs an answer becauase from most angles, WF seems to be taller than Chase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right but a dirty little secret is that the 992' for 1000 Louisiana doesn't measure the penthouse storey on top, whereas Texas Commerce Tower has a flat roof. I measure the penthouse as 14', so that would make Texas Commerce Tower the /second/-tallest building in the state, although still the first thousand-foot building in the world to have been built outside of the two birthplaces of the high-rise.

What makes you think that mechanical room at the top of WF Plaza is not counted in the building height?

The height of both Chase and WF seem to be a mystery. I've seen two heights listed for WF: 972 and 992. Which is correct? Or is it really even taller than that? I've also heard that WF wants to keep the height of its building a mystery.

It begs an answer becauase from most angles, WF seems to be taller than Chase.

True from certain angles, but I don't think it's true from "most" angles.

The idea that WF wants to keep the height of its building secret is a bit silly. (1) WF does not own the building; they are merely a tenant. (2) The height is right there on the building's website: 992 feet.

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chron probibly got that from the Information thing in the Lobby of the Chase Tower. It does say 1,049ft. But I've hear 1,005ft (305m) or 1,002ft.

Chase Tower's website also gives the 1,049 foot height. If that height were correct, it would still be the tallest building in the US outside NY and Chi.

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uptown District. I do most of my socializing in Uptown/River Oaks. It's closer to me than the CBD..

 

Guess they will both always expand. HAIF loves to say Downtown has more live pedestrian happenings..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uptown has a long uphill battle to catch up as there is almost no walkability.  Downtown hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I avoid the Galleria area at all costs. Downtown has better bars, better walkability, better high-rises, better art scene, better funk, better access to parks/trails/bayous, better sports, and has a sense of place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I get a jury summons, there's no reason at all to go anywhere near downtown. Nothing of any interest to me there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, gmac said:

Unless I get a jury summons, there's no reason at all to go anywhere near downtown. Nothing of any interest to me there.

Seriously? There are sports, nice parks, great restaurants and bars, theater, easy public transit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...