Would Rather the Next Super Tall in Downtown Or Uptown?

[Moore713 408]

I was Just curious if I am in the minority here. While I love the construction planned for downtown, I can't help but wonder if a the next phase should go toward uptown.. This rumor 102 would look great in ither site really, but I think a super tall would really stand out in uptown along side william tower IMO. 

 

BTW any history buffs know why  Hines picked uptown for the tower , were they hoping to spark a supertall build in the area or just wanted to be different.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Moore713

[cloud713 3723]

i dont know the history behind it, but im impartial to where the next supertall should go. either way i would be ecstatic Houston is getting a 3rd supertall.. it would be nice if it were in downtown though, between JP Morgan and Wells Fargo, and a bit taller, to fill in the gap between those two.

[TowerSpotter 1103]

Kind of a hard choice but I would say downtown slighty because its rumored to go near minutemaid.

 

Edit: Referring to 102 story tower.

Edited August 1, 2013 by TowerSpotter

[lockmat 2108]

Downtown

[Houston19514 3234]

Not a hard choice at all.  Downtown.  I hope to never see a building taller than Transco in Uptown.

[Moore713 408]

Not a hard choice at all.  Downtown.  I hope to never see a building taller than Transco in Uptown.

 

Why is that ? You don't like it

[cloud713 3723]

what if another district got a supertall? like Upper Kirby, the EC, or another of our many skylines. i kind of like Williams Tower being the tallest in uptown. i guess if they moved the beacon to the taller building i wouldnt be opposed to the idea of a supertall in uptown.

Edited August 1, 2013 by cloud713

[TowerSpotter 1103]

I wouldn't mind a supertall being anywhere inside the 610 loop. Either way it will change our skyline.

[Moore713 408]

what if another district got a supertall? like Upper Kirby, the EC, or another of our many skylines. i kind of like Williams Tower being the tallest in uptown. i guess if they moved the beacon to the taller building i wouldnt be opposed to the idea of a supertall in uptown.

 

I was hoping that those districts would try to put their stamp on the area by creating a signture tower like williams  did for uptown but no bite, when philps 66 announced they were moving to westchase  and building a new building that was going to be their flagship, I had hoped they would go big and do for westchase what Williams did for Uptown.. But no

Edited August 1, 2013 by Moore713

[Hugh Stone 99]

I vote for placing the 102-story skyscraper some place near the intersection of Bissonett and Ashby or maybe somewhere in the Heights or Afton Oaks.

[Gator80 56]

Downtown gets my vote but does anyone seriously think that there is a market for the higher rents that would have to be charged to offset increased construction and operating costs for 80+ stories?

[totheskies 159]

Uhh... Downtown all the way.  Anywhere else just wouldn't look or feel right. 

[cloud713 3723]

You can have a supertalls that's "only" 70 stories, or less if there is an architectural feature/spire on top. I could see it being a fully pre leased building for one large company, or a statement tower, which would most likely be for just one company too.

[citizen4rmptown 158]

Downtown, easily. Even with the upcoming construction, Downtown's skyline will not radically change because the new Chevron Tower is so similar to the former Enron complex. And the other towers at the other bookend of Downtown appear to cover up the other in certain angles. So from the well-known "skyline district" angle, a supertall behind our famous frontline skyscrapers is really the only height that would be able to be make an impact(unless it's a skyscraper that is built in the gaps of the district)

Although it makes for different angles from every direction, which is neat, the fact that the most famous angle of downtown is dominated by enormous and tall skyscrapers in the forefront, it makes it difficult for new towers to make a noticeable impact. Look at BG Place/MainPlace, a 600 footer is almost entirely masked from this angle. Just think how much more dense our skyline would appear if the tallest DT towers were in a central core, instead of concentrated linearly on one half of DT.

 

But I do appreciate having so many different looks to DT.

[xsatyr 71]

Def downtown. I just want something over 700ft in Uptown to bridge the gap to Williams Tower.

[lockmat 2108]

Chevron may not have a huge impact on the skyline but its another step towards street level densification. One less parking lot, er, grassy field, right?

[kbates2 1020]

Downtown.

[KinkaidAlum 2411]

Downtown for sure. 

 

1) Because a 102 story tower would absolutely dwarf the rest of Uptown, including the Transco

 

2) Because of downtown's street grid and access to better public transit. A 102 story tower anywhere in Uptown would be a cluster (& of traffic. Seriously, imagine a 1,400 foot office tower with thousands of employees and nearly everyone of them driving in and out of a garage facility and pouring out onto Uptown roads. 

[shasta 252]

Downtown, easily. Uptown does not have anywhere near the infrastructure to handle the increased traffic caused by a 102 story building. Downtown is designed for it, Uptown is NOT.

[Purdueenginerd 1251]

Downtown. It'd look better there even if it was a 1960s box design.

Imagine if Williams tower was built near minute maid, or where Allen center 5 was supposed to be. That tower would look so much better downtown

[cloud713 3723]

agreed, maybe there will be one in uptown in the next decade once the light rail system is built out toward the west, and i guess the BRT system could help, especially knowing light rail will come in not long behind it. but anytime soon and it would be a nightmare for the area.

[TowerSpotter 1103]

agreed, maybe there will be one in uptown in the next decade once the light rail system is built out toward the west, and i guess the BRT system could help, especially knowing light rail will come in not long behind it. but anytime soon and it would be a nightmare for the area.

That seems like a logical timeframe but I don't think there would be a supertall but maybe something around 40 to 50 storys.

[august948 978]

I'll go contrarian and say put it in the Energy Corridor. Right on I-10 where people can see it for miles around, especially coming into town from the west. Something like that would say to the world, "we're so wealthy we can afford to put a big-a$$ tower anywhere we d@mn well please."

[cloud713 3723]

that would be nice, and a very plausible idea. one would hope that uptown would get a tower over 40 stories in the next 10 years, given the boom were going through. id say more likely less than 5. it will obviously be along post oak. William is lonely and needs some taller company.

[cloud713 3723]

I'll go contrarian and say put it in the Energy Corridor. Right on I-10 where people can see it for miles around, especially coming into town from the west. Something like that would say to the world, "we're so wealthy we can afford to put a big-a$$ tower anywhere we d@mn well please."

 

i think "F*** ZONING!!!" would be the better statement. 

[largeTEXAS 278]

Downtown. As many have said, it's all about the infrastructure. Uptown can hardly handle the current density there. In downtown the block grid, transit streets, freeways, and light rail are all designed to support density. Uptown was never designed for the amount of density it is seeing.

[mfastx 488]

Downtown for sure. 

 

1) Because a 102 story tower would absolutely dwarf the rest of Uptown, including the Transco

 

2) Because of downtown's street grid and access to better public transit. A 102 story tower anywhere in Uptown would be a cluster (& of traffic. Seriously, imagine a 1,400 foot office tower with thousands of employees and nearly everyone of them driving in and out of a garage facility and pouring out onto Uptown roads. 

 

Agree 100%.  Uptown's traffic is already bad enough as it is. 

[Texasota 1726]

Downtown. There are still way too many vacant lots. Honestly I would prefer downtown to uptown for almost *any new construction.

[HtownWxBoy 161]

Downtown! 

[bluecar(a.f.f.) 68]

Downtown...bring back the Bank of the Southwest Tower!

[towerjunkie 191]

I have this feeling that if someone brought back the Bank of the Southwest tower people in Philadelphia would start saying that we copied them when little did they know the Bank of the Southwest tower was the precursor to the Liberty place towers in Philly. 

[HoustonBoy 126]

As great as it'd be to get another super tall, Im really happy it wasnt this one (BoS). The layout is bad, it's very unurban, and it is honestly not the best looking tower IMO. But beggars can't be choosers and I wouldn't complain one bit if this were to go up tomorrow.

[BuzzBuzzDylan 1]

Definitely uptown, you'd get a nice view of the skyline and the number of new luxury projects going in there are awesome (Belfiore, Astoria, Place des Vosges, all of InTown Homes', etc) Obviously you'd have to have a fat wallet, but it would be amazing to live somewhere like the Belfiore.

[Marcus Allen 125]

Yes, to the above reply. I would love to see a modern version of that tower in DT. OR something akin to the Shanghai tower or NYs BofA in DT. I love the Williams Tower in UT and think it should reign supreme in that area for a few more decades, BUT would love to see a residential tower approaching that height. As for MT, I think keeping towers at 500 ft is sufficient for the present time. A supertall in DT symmetrically placed I think would tie the somewhat haphazard skyline together. Sort of like the Library Tower did for LA.

[Marcus Allen 125]

Sorry, the first part of my reply was regarding the BoSW tower in DT that was cancelled. But reading the other posts, I have altered my view. Maybe not a modern version, because yes, it would seem to mimic the one in Chicago and the twins in Philly. But, I would like that idea of a tapered top with spire. I think it would do wonders for DT.

[ekdrm2d1 14716]

On 8/1/2013 at 1:45 PM, Hugh Stone said:

I vote for placing the 102-story skyscraper some place near the intersection of Bissonett and Ashby or maybe somewhere in the Heights or Afton Oaks.

 

[kennyc05 156]

Uptown most definitely to balance it out. 

[kbates2 1020]

Downtown

[Reporter 265]

Anywhere on Ashby Street would be just fine.