Market Square Tower: 40-Story High-Rise At 777 Preston St.

[HoustonIsHome]

Fair enough, I guess I see the buildings as being there to look at without much other interaction, so whether there is a bank or a coffee shop there it doesn't change what the area would do for me personally.

OPP has space for street level retail facing Discovery Green sitting empty.

I see you are mute interested in architecture than public planning. That is fine. This is more of an architecture forum anyway.

But some of us here are interested in architecture and how it fits in and enhances the area.

Because you are more visual, I guess when you travel you don't feel the life that other squares have. For me when I visit the squares are both the open space and the life and continuity that the buildings around gives to the park.

[Nate99]

I see you are mute interested in architecture than public planning. That is fine. This is more of an architecture forum anyway.

But some of us here are interested in architecture and how it fits in and enhances the area.

Because you are more visual, I guess when you travel you don't feel the life that other squares have. For me when I visit the squares are both the open space and the life and continuity that the buildings around gives to the park.

 

There's a balance there between the things and what goes on around them, everyone takes different things away from the same experience. 

[HoustonIsHome]

We just made the same point about OPP and empty space around DG. Finger is losing money because he planned for more street level retail than needed on that one and it still hasn't attracted anyone.

Again a smart planner can plan for retail in the future but it doesn't necessarily have to be used as such from the get go. They can be used for leasing offices, gyms or other amenities and as retail grows they can juggle things around.

Luje I have been saying they don't have to make it but they can fake it.

[HoustonIsHome]

There's a balance between the things and what goes on around them, everyone takes different things away from the same experience.

That is exactly what im saying.

But I would say that most visitors have more positive opinions of a place, if it has more.

Seeing market square by itself people would probably say, oh yeah its a nice little park.

Market square +Warrens + La Carafe etc they would probably say oh yeah its a nice little area surprisingly unique from the rest of downtown.

Market square + Warrens/La Carafe + other amenities all around and it takes a bigger step and becomes more of an experience.

Market Square has the appeal of something that is pure perfection if you squint your eye, but if you open them and take it all in you see that the meat isn't all that thick.

I WANT MORE THICK MEAT, DRIPPING JUICE ON ALL SIDES. I could give a crap about buildings on all sides if its just walls.

Might as well just put me in a box

[H-Town Man]

No, I just think it would be much harder to find tenants for the building and therefore a harder sell. An unnecessary design risk for those with money on the line.  

 

I don't think you can jump to a more purely pedestrian oriented place prior to filling in with options that are more in line with what most people are used to dealing with right now. Maybe after this and the Hines residential building are successful, someone can build up something more in line with what you are describing on the block between the square and the Chronicle building. 

 

 

Fair enough, I guess I see the buildings as being there to look at without much other interaction, so whether there is a bank or a coffee shop there it doesn't change what the area would do for me personally. I don't see any obligation for private property owners to enhance public space except to the extent they want to make it enticing for people to visit their retail tenants, and if they don't want retail tenants for whatever reason, that's their call to make. If that was their intention, I would think that they could find a cheaper spot to build it, presuming the market actually thinks that the square could be best utilized in the manner you envision. 

 

It cuts both ways though, there could be retail tenants there that made the park worse from any number of perspectives. Not that they'd want to put a methadone clinic down there, but they might if the market tanked. 

 

OPP has space for street level retail facing Discovery Green sitting empty. 

 

It would not be "much harder" for them to find tenants if they didn't put a driveway on the side fronting the square.  This is developer brown-nosing at its worst. You're assuming so much thought went into this, it was laid out so carefully, and that the consequences of changing it any little bit would be dire. I think not much thought at all went into which side of the building that driveway was on, and the developer couldn't care less about the square, even though it wouldn't cost hardly anything to change it.

 

You assume that anything a developer does is what "the market actually thinks" is best. Funny how the market thinks it's best to have ground floor retail on the corner of Market Square where Hines is building, and the market doesn't think it's best to have it here.  I think it's just a matter of one developer giving a damn about improving the pedestrian experience around this area and the other developer not giving a damn, but for you, every developer has this crystal ball that he gazes into to tell him exactly what the market thinks is necessary, and the consequences are dire if he doesn't follow it.

 

Finger's retail space will most likely attract tenants as more buildings come on line in that area, and in the meantime, I doubt he's hurting too much by having an empty space in his building.  But how retail is faring on Discovery Green is less relevant than how it's currently faring on Market Square, and most of that space seems to be occupied.

[H-Town Man]

That is exactly what im saying.

But I would say that most visitors have more positive opinions of a place, if it has more.

Seeing market square by itself people would probably say, oh yeah its a nice little park.

Market square +Warrens + La Carafe etc they would probably say oh yeah its a nice little area surprisingly unique from the rest of downtown.

Market square + Warrens/La Carafe + other amenities all around and it takes a bigger step and becomes more of an experience.

Market Square has the appeal of something that is pure perfection if you squint your eye, but if you open them and take it all in you see that the meat isn't all that thick.

I WANT MORE THICK MEAT, DRIPPING JUICE ON ALL SIDES. I could give a crap about buildings on all sides if its just walls.

Might as well just put me in a box

 

Well stated.  All this relativism about "everyone likes different things" is nonsense; people all over the world prefer lively squares that are lined with restaurants and shops and full of people to squares that are on life-support because of careless, indifferent development.  Whether or not we end up getting a great, lively square in Houston depends largely on whether we have people with the vision to develop it.

[HoustonIsHome]

Well stated. All this relativism about "everyone likes different things" is nonsense; people all over the world prefer lively squares that are lined with restaurants and shops and full of people to squares that are on life-support because of careless, indifferent development. Whether or not we end up getting a great, lively square in Houston depends largely on whether we have people with the vision to develop it.

See prior don't understand that Houston can be walkable without the entire 60,000,000 sq miles being walkable. Its development concentrated with amenities and connected with some sort of public transportation that make an area walkable.

We don't need stores in every building from the aquarium to GRB. But if there are clusters around MS, MSQ, GS and DG then that right there would make downtown loads more liveable.

Right now the retail is a building here, one down the street, another around tge corner. Its so spread out or hidden under ground.

[livincinco]

You assume that anything a developer does is what "the market actually thinks" is best. Funny how the market thinks it's best to have ground floor retail on the corner of Market Square where Hines is building, and the market doesn't think it's best to have it here.  I think it's just a matter of one developer giving a damn about improving the pedestrian experience around this area and the other developer not giving a damn, but for you, every developer has this crystal ball that he gazes into to tell him exactly what the market thinks is necessary, and the consequences are dire if he doesn't follow it.

 

 

I think it's more of a question of one developer thinking that ground floor retail is going to be profitable in a particular location and another thinking that it won't.  I don't think any developer is interested in "improving the pedestrian experience" unless it's ultimately profitable for them.

 

[HoustonIsHome]

I think it's more of a question of one developer thinking that ground floor retail is going to be profitable in a particular location and another thinking that it won't. I don't think any developer is interested in "improving the pedestrian experience" unless it's ultimately profitable for them.

But increasing the pedestrian experience for tenants has been shown to be profitable though.

People want to live in these areas. How much is it going to cost to put something other than a blank wall fronting the park?

I can understand not putting anything if you are building low income housing in crappytown or out in the boonies, but this area is a destination. It is the historical district. People are going to pay top dollar for this area, why not make minor improvements to make the area more inviting?

Edited March 14, 2014 by HoustonIsHome

[livincinco]

But increasing the pedestrian experience for tenants has been shown to be profitable though.

People want to live in these areas. How much is it going to cost to put something other than a blank wall fronting the park?

I can understand not putting anything if you are building low income housing in crappytown or out in the boonies, but this area is a destination. It is the historical district. People are going to pay top dollar for this area, why not make minor improvements to make the area more inviting?

 

My point is that it's still a matter of judgement from the individual developer.  Each developer makes a decision regarding the profitability of "increasing the pedestrian experience" and whether it's worth making additional investment to do so.  Additionally, making an investment towards increasing foot traffic is one thing, actually realizing increased foot traffic from that investment is another.

[Nate99]

Well stated.  All this relativism about "everyone likes different things" is nonsense; people all over the world prefer lively squares that are lined with restaurants and shops and full of people to squares that are on life-support because of careless, indifferent development.  Whether or not we end up getting a great, lively square in Houston depends largely on whether we have people with the vision to develop it.

 

Dense cities in countries with minimal private transportation ability or infrastructure lend themselves to "lively" parks and squares because there's nowhere else to go. Houston had the option to build up around downtown and did not. Ditto Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, Detroit, Atlanta, Calgary or anywhere else where more land was available to move away from the density, tell me about their preferences.  We have thousands of people coming from countries full of lively squares that pay thousands in airfare and lodging to get to the Galleria to shop and go to restaurants. Tell me about their preferences.  

 

A  vision that no one agrees with enough to actually fund probably isn't that great of an idea.  To be a bit snarkily to the point to match your needlessly defensive tone, no one is buying it, literally.  If you think that people throw crap together for projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars without thinking, seems to me you could approach them with your fantastic ideas and take some of that free flowing cash for yourself and implement your vision at the same time. 

 

If you want to call that "developer brown nosing", so be it, I don't think much of your motivations either. 

Edited March 14, 2014 by Nate99

[H-Town Man]

I think it's more of a question of one developer thinking that ground floor retail is going to be profitable in a particular location and another thinking that it won't.  I don't think any developer is interested in "improving the pedestrian experience" unless it's ultimately profitable for them.

 

Sure. But the fact that two developers came to two different conclusions just a block away from each other shows that "the market" does not dictate either way; it's more subject to the opinion and interest of the developer.

 

I can't control what each developer does, but I can applaud a developer who is willing to take a risk that improves the city. And this may come as a shock to post-80's America, but there are developers in this world and even in this country who care quite a lot about the public environment, and are willing to take risks to better it. It's called "civic spirit."

 

Besides, retail on Market Square frankly isn't that much of a risk, not with 700 residential units coming online and maybe an office building in the pipeline. You think a coffee shop on Milam @ Preston isn't going to be successful, with 40 stories of residential above it and a busy park across the street? Come on.

 

Edited March 14, 2014 by H-Town Man

[H-Town Man]

Dense cities in countries with minimal private transportation ability or infrastructure lend themselves to "lively" parks and squares because there's nowhere else to go. Houston had the option to build up around downtown and did not. Ditto Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, Detroit, Atlanta, Calgary or anywhere else where more land was available to move away from the density, tell me about their preferences.  We have thousands of people coming from countries full of lively squares that pay thousands in airfare and lodging to get to the Galleria to shop and go to restaurants. Tell me about their preferences.  

 

A  vision that no one agrees with enough to actually fund probably isn't that great of an idea.  To be a bit snarkily to the point to match your needlessly defensive tone, no one is buying it, literally.  If you think that people throw crap together for projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars without thinking, seems to me you could approach them with your fantastic ideas and take some of that free flowing cash for yourself and implement your vision at the same time. 

 

If you want to call that "developer brown nosing", so be it, I don't think much of your motivations either. 

 

This would have been a great post in 1970. The fact is Houston is building up around downtown, and younger people are choosing density and well-planned spaces, in Houston, Dallas, LA, Denver, Atlanta, etc. Market Square already has way more use and interest now than it did ten years ago; my only point is that minimal planning would keep this side of it viable for future use as that interest continues to swell.

 

No one agrees with my vision enough to fund it? That's funny, Hines is funding just such a vision a block away. I just can't get over the fact that you get so riled up when someone on an architecture forum thinks that a building should better address a public square. As I've stated before, if you never want to criticize anything any developer does and get upset when other people do, start the Houston Developer Cheerleading Forum. An architecture forum is going to voice criticisms.

[HoustonIsHome]

Dense cities in countries with minimal private transportation ability or infrastructure lend themselves to "lively" parks and squares because there's nowhere else to go. Houston had the option to build up around downtown and did not. Ditto Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, Detroit, Atlanta, Calgary or anywhere else where more land was available to move away from the density, tell me about their preferences. We have thousands of people coming from countries full of lively squares that pay thousands in airfare and lodging to get to the Galleria to shop and go to restaurants. Tell me about their preferences.

A vision that no one agrees with enough to actually fund probably isn't that great of an idea. To be a bit snarkily to the point to match your needlessly defensive tone, no one is buying it, literally. If you think that people throw crap together for projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars without thinking, seems to me you could approach them with your fantastic ideas and take some of that free flowing cash for yourself and implement your vision at the same time.

If you want to call that "developer brown nosing", so be it, I don't think much of your motivations either.

Market Square is already lively. Kinda small but I see people in and around that area all the time. My two biggest problems with it are that the preston and milam sides are not like the travis and congress sides, and the lower pedestrian feel.

I think people would use the area more if there was more to do

[Nate99]

This would have been a great post in 1970. The fact is Houston is building up around downtown, and younger people are choosing density and well-planned spaces, in Houston, Dallas, LA, Denver, Atlanta, etc. Market Square already has way more use and interest now than it did ten years ago; my only point is that minimal planning would keep this side of it viable for future use as that interest continues to swell.

 

No one agrees with my vision enough to fund it? That's funny, Hines is funding just such a vision a block away. I just can't get over the fact that you get so riled up when someone on an architecture forum thinks that a building should better address a public square. As I've stated before, if you never want to criticize anything any developer does and get upset when other people do, start the Houston Developer Cheerleading Forum. An architecture forum is going to voice criticisms.

 

They are building up now (with subsidies), but they did not in 1970 (or pretty much any time before now), that disproves the universal and timeless appeal of urban density and parks and squares. It depends on many factors that make it more or less attractive given other options that are now becoming less attractive.  Houston is growing, so everyone has to go somewhere. Making a public space nicer is the city's job, and good for them in making Market Square an attractive place again, but I don't see why that obligates anyone else to do anything a certain way. 

 

I'm not trying to shout you down, nor am I the one using terms like "sunshine pumping" and "brown nosing" to belittle your opinion; getting over your perception of my point of view or not is your choice. 

 

There is no "vision" being built. There is a park/square with different landowners all around it. Hines is funding a building a block away that they want to make money with, not developing a lively district. Street level retail goes along with that, just like it did for 1001 Main, BG place and the little deli in Houston House. I have more faith in investors than you. If it were highly likely that an approach to this building such as what you propose made everything better, I believe they would do it. There may be many permutations that they have to deal with that may make it not worth their while; or it could be in the plan yet, we don't even know.

 

If you are expecting anyone to give up value for the sake of the neighborhood, I disagree with that. If you think they are missing an opportunity to create more overall value, that's a fair opinion to have. I just doubt that you see something that they haven't thought about.  

[H-Town Man]

They are building up now (with subsidies), but they did not in 1970 (or pretty much any time before now), that disproves the universal and timeless appeal of urban density and parks and squares. It depends on many factors that make it more or less attractive given other options that are now becoming less attractive.  Houston is growing, so everyone has to go somewhere. Making a public space nicer is the city's job, and good for them in making Market Square an attractive place again, but I don't see why that obligates anyone else to do anything a certain way. 

 

I'm not trying to shout you down, nor am I the one using terms like "sunshine pumping" and "brown nosing" to belittle your opinion; getting over your perception of my point of view or not is your choice. 

 

There is no "vision" being built. There is a park/square with different landowners all around it. Hines is funding a building a block away that they want to make money with, not developing a lively district. Street level retail goes along with that, just like it did for 1001 Main, BG place and the little deli in Houston House. I have more faith in investors than you. If it were highly likely that an approach to this building such as what you propose made everything better, I believe they would do it. There may be many permutations that they have to deal with that may make it not worth their while; or it could be in the plan yet, we don't even know.

 

If you are expecting anyone to give up value for the sake of the neighborhood, I disagree with that. If you think they are missing an opportunity to create more overall value, that's a fair opinion to have. I just doubt that you see something that they haven't thought about.  

 

I actually think I am seeing something they haven't thought about, but you can defend them all you want, I think they'd be impressed at your perseverance on their behalf. One wonders if, in your world, a developer ever does anything that isn't totally rational and as good as it could possibly have been. In my world, developers are human and sometimes miss things; some have more vision than others, and some build things that are inconsiderate and detrimental to the area around them.

 

Making a public space successful is not just the "city's job," success of a public space depends on how development around it is oriented. And quit your hangup with people being "obligated," no one is obligating anyone to do anything, just voicing criticism.

 

Sorry to belittle your opinions but you jumped headlong into this thing this morning with your mini-essay. I still can't see why my criticism of a minor aspect of this building bothers you so much. We've had this conversation before, and I thought we had made peace and agreed to disagree.

[HoustonIsHome]

Fact of the matter is that developers ignore street presence because they don't feel obliged to and they feel that way because we do not press the issue.

We just settle for whatever we get.

Even worse we stiffle efforts of those who do want more

[Nate99]

I actually think I am seeing something they haven't thought about, but you can defend them all you want, I think they'd be impressed at your perseverance on their behalf. One wonders if, in your world, a developer ever does anything that isn't totally rational and as good as it could possibly have been. In my world, developers are human and sometimes miss things; some have more vision than others, and some build things that are inconsiderate and detrimental to the area around them.

 

Making a public space successful is not just the "city's job," success of a public space depends on how development around it is oriented. And quit your hangup with people being "obligated," no one is obligating anyone to do anything, just voicing criticism.

 

Sorry to belittle your opinions but you jumped headlong into this thing this morning with your mini-essay. I still can't see why my criticism of a minor aspect of this building bothers you so much. We've had this conversation before, and I thought we had made peace and agreed to disagree.

 

I don't intend to be anything but peaceable about it, but we are just continuing to disagree at length. Writing "essays" tests my understanding about how I think through stuff and finding a contrary opinion gives me a chance to walk through my logic. Sometimes I change my mind as a result, so far I haven't here. 

 

Allowing people to do what they want with their property is really important to me, as is our right to criticize.

 

If someone wasted as much space talking about a project as we have here, I'd probably read what they have to say, so maybe you'll clue them in. At the end of the day, you're idea probably would make the area better even in my opinion; if changing it would be worth it to them, only they can say.  

[jgriff]

I don't intend to be anything but peaceable about it, but we are just continuing to disagree at length. Writing "essays" tests my understanding about how I think through stuff and finding a contrary opinion gives me a chance to walk through my logic. Sometimes I change my mind as a result, so far I haven't here. 

 

Allowing people to do what they want with their property is really important to me, as is our right to criticize.

 

If someone wasted as much space talking about a project as we have here, I'd probably read what they have to say, so maybe you'll clue them in. At the end of the day, you're idea probably would make the area better even in my opinion; if changing it would be worth it to them, only they can say.  

 

Allowing people to do what they want with their property is really important to me, as is our right to criticize. +++

 

This is much more important than having "public spaces".

 

[H-Town Man]

Allowing people to do what they want with their property is really important to me, as is our right to criticize.

 

Well cool, I'll take that as a green light to criticize. I suppose if the issue of zoning ever comes up, we can have a lively discussion then about property rights.

[H-Town Man]

Allowing people to do what they want with their property is really important to me, as is our right to criticize. +++

 

This is much more important than having "public spaces".

 

 

Not to beat a point into the ground, but having public spaces actually helps us defend our other rights. It's no accident that Ukraine's revolution succeeded because there was a large public space in the center of their city. If you've followed political events in Hungary the last few years, you've seen how the government has effectively taken over public spaces around its parliament to prevent major protests as it passes laws that squelch democracy in that country. Public spaces are important, for aesthetic/cultural reasons as well as for rights.

[Nate99]

Well cool, I'll take that as a green light to criticize. I suppose if the issue of zoning ever comes up, we can have a lively discussion then about property rights.

 

Indeed, look forward to it. 

 

On topic though, right there at the Milam facing corner of the garage closest to where the new building will go is a corridor to the elevators, on the other side of that corridor is the ramp going up. Getting garage access through the points shown on the rendering would require a new ramp and a new entrance to the garage off Milam if it did not enter the existing garage at higher level. 

 

Connecting the two structures might be the limiting factor with what they can do on the Milam side, if that's what they are doing. 

[HoustonIsHome]

Looking at the revisions for the Hines market square residential I see so many color change/material revisions I dunno why do many are bothered by the yellow.

Another thing I noticed is that Hines seem to be so much more of a substantial building, im surprised it had so much fewer units being only 7 floors shorter

[cloud713]

The Hines building is on like a quarter to a third of the block, vs half the block for block 35

[HoustonIsHome]

Yeah just looked at it on Google earth and saw that the Hines block is shorter

[wxman]

Here is a very quick, cheesy mockup of these two buildings. Thoughts?

 

 

[LTAWACS]

Looks very nice. What happened to the other building u posted?

[democide]

The height for both looks about right, looks good for a quick mockup.  But that massive garage that will be visible from this view is missing.  The Hines tower looks way better.

[nativehoustonion]

Nice mockup, but they will be a few blocks to the east.  Calpine Center will be next to the 40 story highrise which we cannot see.

[bobruss]

Actually this new tower is going up two blocks north of Calpine. The Hogg lofts are between it and this project. Hines tower will be two blocks east of Calpine and one block north across from the proposed and probably not constructed stream Essex tower, on the site just north of the Houston Chronicle. I know this area pretty well since I used to run Cabos.