POST: Mixed-Use Development At 401 Franklin St.

[MarathonMan]

It baffles me that this warehouse/distribution center is a historic landmark and protected from significant alteration while the Kirby Mansion in Midtown is unprotected and ripe for demolition if it’s new owner sees fit.  

Edited July 16, 2019 by MarathonMan

[Elseed]

m.e.h........another mall....

 

Houston Center ----> Sucks

Bayou Place ----------> Sucks

Houston Pavilions/GreenStreet -----> Sucks but getting better very slowly

Downtown Tunnels ------> Single worst development in Downtown Houston history.

 

Was really excited to see what was going to happen with this site but not anymore...The city should've gave the building to University of Houston-Downtown and just let the school

expand its footprint...but they decided the building is better off being an indoor mall straight from 1977.

 

This project should be called PreHTX...because its everything lame Houston developers are known for.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Elseed

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, Elseed said:

m.e.h........another mall....

 

Houston Center ----> Sucks

Bayou Place ----------> Sucks

Houston Pavilions/GreenStreet -----> Sucks but getting better very slowly

Downtown Tunnels ------> Single worst development in Downtown Houston history.

 

Was really excited to see what was going to happen with this site but not anymore...The city should've gave the building to University of Houston-Downtown and just let the school

expand its footprint...but they decided the building is better off being an indoor mall straight from 1977.

 

This project should be called PreHTX...because its everything lame Houston developers are known for.

 

It's a market, not a mall. I was at Dallas Farmer's Market last weekend. They've got one open-air building where fresh produce is still sold, essentially what the Houston Farmer's Market is, but the main attraction is a big climate-controlled building that has food vendors and shops. That's basically what this is, only this is way bigger and of solid construction. More solid than pretty much any modern industrial building.

 

[Elseed]

13 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

It's a market, not a mall. I was at Dallas Farmer's Market last weekend. They've got one open-air building where fresh produce is still sold, essentially what the Houston Farmer's Market is, but the main attraction is a big climate-controlled building that has food vendors and shops. That's basically what this is, only this is way bigger and of solid construction. More solid than pretty much any modern industrial building.

 

 

Market? Arent we already getting a brand new redeveloped yuppified Farmers Market with the Caninos Redevelopment? 

[H-Town Man]

7 hours ago, Elseed said:

 

Market? Arent we already getting a brand new redeveloped yuppified Farmers Market with the Caninos Redevelopment? 

 

I didn't say farmers market. Comparisons have been made on this thread to Reading Terminal in Philadelphia and Pike Place Market in Seattle. Not farmers markets and not malls either. There will likely be some overlap with the redeveloped farmers market on Airline since that one will not just be fresh produce anymore, but a city can have more than one, just like cities have multiple food halls and multiple farmers markets. This is like a cross between a farmers market and a food hall, with some tchotchkes vendors thrown in.

Edited July 16, 2019 by H-Town Man

[Subdude]

13 hours ago, X.R. said:

Didn't see this posted, it has a bit more information that the HChron article:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cynthialescalleet/2019/06/27/from-mail-to-mixed-use-in-downtown-houston/#7f92b5605da7

 

I didn't realize that because they utilized the tax credits or what not, they can't do the residential stuff: 

 

A residential component is not part of the mix, he said, because it is a landmark historic building and the project incorporates state and federal tax credits: “We were restricted from making large façade modifications which would have made it impossible to place residential units in the existing building.”

 

At Preservation Houston, an advocacy organization, Executive Director David Bush said this property and project have been on the organization’s radar. “It would have been very easy to lose the post office," he said in an email. "These buildings are an age when they’re typically threatened. There are a lot of them, they don’t look modern anymore and they aren’t what most people think of as historic.

“So we’ve got two challenges: Helping people understand that buildings from this era are architecturally and historically significant. And getting owners and investors to look at historic preservation as a viable alternative to Houston’s typical scrape and rebuild history of development.”

 

 

I'm all for historic preservation, but the old post office hardly strikes me as architecturally or historically significant.  

[H-Town Man]

21 minutes ago, Subdude said:

 

I'm all for historic preservation, but the old post office hardly strikes me as architecturally or historically significant.  

 

It does not have red brick, arched windows, keystones, wood timber beams, or detailed stonework. However, the giant concrete columns will be a sight to behold in our era of cheap disposable construction. I know, I know - concrete. Not the most poetic material. But think of the cistern on Buffalo Bayou. It has a certain "pillars of the earth" quality. The fact that this thing is strong enough to hold a rooftop garden with public gathering is pretty remarkable - no modern distribution center roof is built so strong. They didn't mess around when they built post office buildings. Even neighborhood post offices are a nightmare to tear down. There was a certain "we are the new Rome and we're going to build like Rome" mindset in the USPS in the 20th century. This may not have the Beaux Arts classicism of the Farley building in NYC but where it counts, in durability and utility, it evokes something of a classical spirit.

 

[Purdueenginerd]

4 hours ago, Subdude said:

 

I'm all for historic preservation, but the old post office hardly strikes me as architecturally or historically significant.  

 

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

It does not have red brick, arched windows, keystones, wood timber beams, or detailed stonework. However, the giant concrete columns will be a sight to behold in our era of cheap disposable construction. I know, I know - concrete. Not the most poetic material. But think of the cistern on Buffalo Bayou. It has a certain "pillars of the earth" quality. The fact that this thing is strong enough to hold a rooftop garden with public gathering is pretty remarkable - no modern distribution center roof is built so strong. They didn't mess around when they built post office buildings. Even neighborhood post offices are a nightmare to tear down. There was a certain "we are the new Rome and we're going to build like Rome" mindset in the USPS in the 20th century. This may not have the Beaux Arts classicism of the Farley building in NYC but where it counts, in durability and utility, it evokes something of a classical spirit.

 

 

There is still an older 1930's era post office at the site. Go back to my comments in May 2018 and you'll see the aerial shots of it. 

[H-Town Man]

12 minutes ago, Purdueenginerd said:

 

 

There is still an older 1930's era post office at the site. Go back to my comments in May 2018 and you'll see the aerial shots of it. 

 

I couldn't find your comments in May 2018. But I'm not sure how it affects the issue of whether the main 1960's building is preservation-worthy.

 

[Purdueenginerd]

On 8/1/2018 at 7:41 PM, Purdueenginerd said:

 

There is a portion of the building towards the front that was designed and constructed in the 1930's. If you look at the curved drive-in ramp of the structure, you'll see the original 1930's portion of the structure. Ive attached a screen shot of the site from 1944 to 2017. You'll see the original 1930's building in both images. 

 

 

 

 

Sorry @H-Town Man,  I was off by a few months. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Purdueenginerd

[Urbannizer]

 

[Luminare]

12 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

It does not have red brick, arched windows, keystones, wood timber beams, or detailed stonework. However, the giant concrete columns will be a sight to behold in our era of cheap disposable construction. I know, I know - concrete. Not the most poetic material. But think of the cistern on Buffalo Bayou. It has a certain "pillars of the earth" quality. The fact that this thing is strong enough to hold a rooftop garden with public gathering is pretty remarkable - no modern distribution center roof is built so strong. They didn't mess around when they built post office buildings. Even neighborhood post offices are a nightmare to tear down. There was a certain "we are the new Rome and we're going to build like Rome" mindset in the USPS in the 20th century. This may not have the Beaux Arts classicism of the Farley building in NYC but where it counts, in durability and utility, it evokes something of a classical spirit.

 

I think Tadeo Ado and probably Luis Barragan would like to have a word with you regarding concrete not being the most "poetic material" (not the only good examples too).

 

On 7/3/2019 at 2:10 PM, cspwal said:

I don't think they need to make it pedestrian only, just work on improving the sidewalks - you could remove one lane of traffic and widen the sidewalks enough to included benches and trees.  Something like that could make a real difference to the walk

 

On 7/3/2019 at 12:42 PM, H-Town Man said:

A thought occurs to me while Google Earthing this. They should petition the city to make the Congress Street bridge pedestrian-only. It seems like a redundant bridge. Turn it into a park/promenade with brick paving and trees and gardens, with stairs down to the bayou. Brick-pave the intersection with Franklin and then continue the promenade up to Post. They can offer to pay for it in an agreement similar to how Main Street Square was done. This will tie the development in with downtown and make it a lot more comfortable, even enjoyable for people to walk there and back.

 

 

While doing some digging in the Downtown subforum for things to put on the development map I ran into this. Seems like we completely forgot that Bagby street is suppose to get a make over, and this upgrade will revamp that bridge to make it more pedestrian friendly. Presentation in the link:
http://www.downtowntirz.com/downtownhouston/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/180507_Bagby-Street-Improvment-Plan-FINAL-Report-Web.pdf

I'm sure they took this into account at some point when deciding to pull the trigger on this. This soon to be beautified street is basically going to lead straight to this developments front door.

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

I think Tadeo Ado and probably Luis Barragan would like to have a word with you regarding concrete not being the most "poetic material" (not the only good examples too).

 

I thought I was being pretty generous to concrete. If only a few architects have realized its possibilities as a poetic material, then it is probably not the most poetic material. Still a poetic material in certain hands.

[Angostura]

23 hours ago, Subdude said:

 

I'm all for historic preservation, but the old post office hardly strikes me as architecturally or historically significant.  

 

23 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

It does not have red brick, arched windows, keystones, wood timber beams, or detailed stonework. However, the giant concrete columns will be a sight to behold in our era of cheap disposable construction. I know, I know - concrete. Not the most poetic material. But think of the cistern on Buffalo Bayou. It has a certain "pillars of the earth" quality. The fact that this thing is strong enough to hold a rooftop garden with public gathering is pretty remarkable - no modern distribution center roof is built so strong. They didn't mess around when they built post office buildings. Even neighborhood post offices are a nightmare to tear down. There was a certain "we are the new Rome and we're going to build like Rome" mindset in the USPS in the 20th century. This may not have the Beaux Arts classicism of the Farley building in NYC but where it counts, in durability and utility, it evokes something of a classical spirit.

 

 

 

I think cities should preserve a certain (small) number of these kinds of buildings so we don't forget just how ugly they are, lest someone someday decide it's a good idea to build in this style again.

 

[intencity77]

While this building hasn’t been recladded, its exterior style is reminiscent of the architecturally beautiful buildings that were “modernized” with recladding of ugly sheet metal in the 50’s/60’s. Regardless of its supposed concrete structural integrity, I don’t think its facade is architecturally or historically significant. It’s mind boggling that the city sees some kind of historical significance in this plainly put, beige warehouse and not in the many historically beautiful buildings that have since been torn down and still are to this day. Very backward priorities. 

[Texasota]

Wasn't up to the city. This is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so it's historic-ness was determined by the Texas Historical Commission (and the feds agreed.)

 

 

[MarathonMan]

3 hours ago, Texasota said:

Wasn't up to the city. This is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so it's historic-ness was determined by the Texas Historical Commission (and the feds agreed.)

 

 

Is there some private entity that has to request that a building be deemed historically significant and, thus, protected?  Or, does the Texas Historical Commission move on its own?

[intencity77]

2 hours ago, Texasota said:

Wasn't up to the city. This is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, so it's historic-ness was determined by the Texas Historical Commission (and the feds agreed.)

 

 

 

Well no wonder. Thanks for the clarification. The feds probably only approved the listing since it was a historically government owned building.  Regardless what the commission/feds think on its “historic-ness”, I have to disagree on this one. Maybe I can see the listing for the administration building only, even as butt ugly as it is (really? facade modifications aren’t allowed?!), but not for the surrounding distribution warehouse portion. That’s purely ridiculous if so. Guess this means I am not as pro-preservation of “historic” buildings as I thought I was. Lol. Oh well. 

[Texasota]

1 hour ago, MarathonMan said:

Is there some private entity that has to request that a building be deemed historically significant and, thus, protected?  Or, does the Texas Historical Commission move on its own?

 

Basically that determination is made any time there's a federal "undertaking." That could include federal funds, but in this case it probably happened when the property was tranferred out of federal ownership. I *believe* that selling a property (in particular a post office) to a private entity also includes a covenant which requires the new owner to adhere to federal guidelines for the treatment of historic properties.

 

Most of the time, a National Register-listed property *doesn't* have a covenant, so restrictions would only come in to play if the owner was applying for grants or tax credits. If he used private funds he could do whatever.

 

Otherwise a private entity can always submit a nomination to THC, which could result in listing but typically not a covenant.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Texasota

[H-Town Man]

5 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Also on the Loopnet listing is a site plan showing the location of the hotel and other portions for Post. This isn't in the marketing brochures. From the site plan, the  boutique hotel will be 52,000 sf.
 

 

 

I would have thought that a lot of the white area on Level I would have been retail. Do we know what it is, exactly? The areas devoted to retail don't seem that big, considering the grand market hall concept. Maybe they are just doing it in phases since that is a lot of retail space to fill all at once.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by H-Town Man

[Texasota]

I think a lot of it is the market hall itself. This listing seems to be for more permanent separate spaces.

[J Money]

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I would have thought that a lot of the white area on Level I would have been retail. Do we know what it is, exactly? The areas devoted to retail don't seem that big, considering the grand market hall concept. Maybe they are just doing it in phases since that is a lot of retail space to fill all at once.

 

 

Also the portion on the right/east on level 1+2 is the proposed concert venue, I believe. 

Is the basement usable space? 

[H-Town Man]

6 minutes ago, Texasota said:

I think a lot of it is the market hall itself. This listing seems to be for more permanent separate spaces.

 

Yes, I'm seeing that now. The white section next to the blue section on the left looks like it has a lot of kiosks and small vendor spaces, while the central section where you enter seems like it has maybe larger vendor spaces. You can also see the skylights outlined, which are really like wells going through all floors of the building. The office people will be able to look down and see the market hall below. I'm looking forward to this!

 

[mattyt36]

We have gone from having relatively few public recreational areas to having so many on the drawing board that I shudder to think of the long-term implications regarding upkeep. (Not necessarily with this one, as it will be privately operated, but in the same vein I question their business model.)

 

With all that is conceptual on the drawing board for downtown and environs, I hate to say it but it seems like total overkill. Some concepts include cap parks from 45-10/59 interchange to the Spur, along with a “High Line” on the Pierce Elevated. And the downtown master plan includes the “Green Necklace” (or whatever it’s called) circling the inner core of downtown. And whatever East River is going to try to do. Certainly looks beautiful on paper but good Lord (1) how will such acreage be “populated”; and (2) who the hell is going to maintain it?

 

I guess, though, if I had to choose between this and how things were 20 years ago in re lack of imagination, I’d choose now. 

[swtsig]

8 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

We have gone from having relatively few public recreational areas to having so many on the drawing board that I shudder to think of the long-term implications regarding upkeep. (Not necessarily with this one, as it will be privately operated, but in the same vein I question their business model.)

 

With all that is conceptual on the drawing board for downtown and environs, I hate to say it but it seems like total overkill. Some concepts include cap parks from 45-10/59 interchange to the Spur, along with a “High Line” on the Pierce Elevated. And the downtown master plan includes the “Green Necklace” (or whatever it’s called) circling the inner core of downtown. And whatever East River is going to try to do. Certainly looks beautiful on paper but good Lord (1) how will such acreage be “populated”; and (2) who the hell is going to maintain it?

 

I guess, though, if I had to choose between this and how things were 20 years ago in re lack of imagination, I’d choose now. 

 

Mine of the best features of a city like London is that it is awash w parks, many quite large, that make enjoying and traversing the city quite spectacular. Houston, especially central Houston,

lacks natural reprieves from the concrete... I fully support surrounding downtown w a green oasis. 

[kbates2]

While we have a number of parks, many of them are over-programmed as is and so adding more could spread that programming around.  Market Square Park basically only opens their lawn for events now which sucks if you want to just enjoy it as a neighboring resident.  With a few less events (and maybe smarter programming) they could leave it open more of the time.

[thatguysly]

I like that it claims 360 degree views of downtown but in reality downtown is only on one side of the project.

[H-Town Man]

12 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

We have gone from having relatively few public recreational areas to having so many on the drawing board that I shudder to think of the long-term implications regarding upkeep. (Not necessarily with this one, as it will be privately operated, but in the same vein I question their business model.)

 

With all that is conceptual on the drawing board for downtown and environs, I hate to say it but it seems like total overkill. Some concepts include cap parks from 45-10/59 interchange to the Spur, along with a “High Line” on the Pierce Elevated. And the downtown master plan includes the “Green Necklace” (or whatever it’s called) circling the inner core of downtown. And whatever East River is going to try to do. Certainly looks beautiful on paper but good Lord (1) how will such acreage be “populated”; and (2) who the hell is going to maintain it?

 

I guess, though, if I had to choose between this and how things were 20 years ago in re lack of imagination, I’d choose now. 

 

I think this is only an issue if they are all developed too quickly, i.e. if the whole Pierce Elevated were torn down today and made into a park, you would definitely have some homeless inhabitation. But as a longterm vision I do think we need lots of green around downtown, esp. as Houston is perceived as such a "concrete" city. Chicago, Boston, and Austin are examples of cities where the parks really grace and enhance the center city. Houston needs it all the more due to the lack of a waterfront.

 

 

[ZRFkris]

There is plenty of room to build dense and any development that embraces green space is planning for the future and trying to set a better example. I want a couple of world class green spaces to add to downtown area. 

[j_cuevas713]

On 8/14/2019 at 11:26 AM, H-Town Man said:

 

I think this is only an issue if they are all developed too quickly, i.e. if the whole Pierce Elevated were torn down today and made into a park, you would definitely have some homeless inhabitation. But as a longterm vision I do think we need lots of green around downtown, esp. as Houston is perceived as such a "concrete" city. Chicago, Boston, and Austin are examples of cities where the parks really grace and enhance the center city. Houston needs it all the more due to the lack of a waterfront.

 

 

May have a waterfront in about 10 years lol jk