Jump to content
Urbannizer

La Colombe d'Or Hotel Expanding with new Residential High-Rise

Recommended Posts

On 5/6/2018 at 9:22 PM, hindesky said:

XhkQEUE.jpg

 

Ugh  . . . not that it hasn't been said before but it's going to look so awkward that close to Hanover.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

 

Ugh  . . . not that it hasn't been said before but it's going to look so awkward that close to Hanover.

 

Tall buildings in close proximity to one another. What do they think this is, a city or something?

  • Like 5
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Tall buildings in close proximity to one another. What do they think this is, a city or something?

 

In a residential neighborhood and closer than buildings are in any business district.

 

I'd say it's pretty, er, groundbreaking as far as most U.S. cities go.

Edited by mattyt36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

 

In a residential neighborhood and closer than buildings are in any business district.

 

I'd say it's pretty, er, groundbreaking as far as most U.S. cities go.

 

??  You should get out and visit a business district or two. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

??  You should get out and visit a business district or two. 

 

Um, buddy, those buildings are closer than any buildings of similar scale in Houston and the vast majority of other U.S. cities, probably because zoning requirements would specifically prohibit them.  Have you even seen the site?

 

Moreover, if your glib response is this is some sign of Houston becoming a "real city," I'd ask why on earth we (or any other city) would prefer such buildings on top of each other absent some integrated development plan.  But feel free to share the multitude of similar examples from other "real cities."

Edited by mattyt36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

 

Um, buddy, those buildings are closer than any buildings of similar scale in Houston and the vast majority of other U.S. cities, probably because zoning requirements would specifically prohibit them.  Have you even seen the site?

 

Moreover, if your glib response is this is some sign of Houston becoming a "real city," I'd ask why on earth we (or any other city) would prefer such buildings on top of each other absent some integrated development plan.  But feel free to share the multitude of similar examples from other "real cities."

 

SMH  https://screenshots.firefox.com/Pc7EdypUNb7iHiGZ/www.google.com

https://screenshots.firefox.com/pPIHkrqiFkhlpMap/www.google.com

https://screenshots.firefox.com/F03qY6D1BAIfWXH7/www.google.com

https://screenshots.firefox.com/nRTH2yVomkYhYH3r/www.google.com

 

You don't really have to visit other cities or even leave your house. 

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Oh Lord.  North Lakeshore and Midtown Manhattan constitute "most other cities in the U.S."

 

Look, you somehow think it's an indicator of a "real city" to have 2, what, 500,000 sf buildings taking up 75% of the same block on a street in a predominantly single family home residential neighborhood with no other building probably even 100,000 sf 0.5 miles in any direction because Chicago and Manhattan have plenty of examples of the same. 

 

Maybe everyone else on here agrees with you and I'm in the minority.  But in my very humble opinion I'd say you have a pretty skewed view.  I'd also say if you think this is a harbinger to Montrose becoming like Lake Shore or Midtown you're pretty delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there are high rises in similarly close proximity in downtown areas.  Land is at a premium, so you have to cram y’all buildings together.  I think what mattyt36 is getting at is that two buildings this close to one another in an area with no other high rises nearby will look awkward. I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

Of course there are high rises in similarly close proximity in downtown areas.  Land is at a premium, so you have to cram y’all buildings together.  I think what mattyt36 is getting at is that two buildings this close to one another in an area with no other high rises nearby will look awkward. I agree.

 

Thanks, that's what I was getting at.  These buildings will be right on top of each other, closer than any buildings of similar scale in downtown (not that that has to be a de facto constraint).  And if there are modern examples (i.e., not built in the 1920s) of buildings of similar scale being built by different developers in a neighborhood otherwise barren of high rises, I'd be happy to walk back my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think the way these buildings will be situated on each site will limit the obstruction of views.  

 

Both are excellent projects, in my opinion, and probably 2 of the better high-rise additions to the city in the last 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, roadrunner said:

I actually think the way these buildings will be situated on each site will limit the obstruction of views.  

 

Both are excellent projects, in my opinion, and probably 2 of the better high-rise additions to the city in the last 5 years.

 

It's great if the obstruction of views will be "limited" (albeit that in and of itself implies that there will still be some negative impacts for existing residents of Hanover Montrose).  My comment is how out of place it will look from the exterior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that having two tall buildings essentially on top of each other does look out of place, that's par for the course for a city with no-zoning. Everything is/looks out of place. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly, there were some rumblings of finding a buyer for that strip mall at Westheimer and Montrose located a block north of the Hanover back in 2013 if a deal could be reached to buy out Half-Priced Books' lease there.  I think the fee owner started leasing out the other spaces after a deal could not be reached with Half-Priced (this is all based on hearsay so please chime in if anyone else has heard something on this).  I suspect we will see a highrise at the Half-Priced Books' site after its lease runs out, in which case this stretch of Montrose might have three taller buildings tightly clustered together.

 

From the standpoint of urban development, I tend to think seemingly sudden changes in land usage--including the need for greater density--necessarily mean the first structures that reflect the shift in usage will look "out of place" because our expectations are framed by what's been there before.  If, in 15 years, Montrose becomes an urban canyon, we won't think twice about these two being close together.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, houstontexasjack said:

From the standpoint of urban development, I tend to think seemingly sudden changes in land usage--including the need for greater density--necessarily mean the first structures that reflect the shift in usage will look "out of place" because our expectations are framed by what's been there before.  If, in 15 years, Montrose becomes an urban canyon, we won't think twice about these two being close together.

 

 

 

I know I'm likely beating a dead horse at this point but have you seen the site in person?  I think even if there are 10 more similarly sized residential towers on Montrose between Westheimer and 59 this pair will stand out as rather kooky.

 

Stated differently, if the same person owned the block, I doubt he would ever build 2 buildings along the lines of what is happening here.

 

It's almost as if the La Colombe D'Or guy was so p*ssed by the Hanover that he went all-in on this project out of revenge.  (I know that's not the case as I highly doubt Hines would be associated with a project that wasn't financially feasible.)

Edited by mattyt36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milwaukee.  These were built within two years of each other.  Circa 2004-2006.  Yes, these are two buildings, separated by mere feet and no offset.  And, yes, they look awkward together with plenty of open air all around!

06219E33-B86B-4E94-A72A-D084738828EF.jpeg

Edited by MarathonMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarathonMan said:

Of course there are high rises in similarly close proximity in downtown areas.  Land is at a premium, so you have to cram y’all buildings together.  I think what mattyt36 is getting at is that two buildings this close to one another in an area with no other high rises nearby will look awkward. I agree.

 

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

 

Thanks, that's what I was getting at.  These buildings will be right on top of each other, closer than any buildings of similar scale in downtown (not that that has to be a de facto constraint).  And if there are modern examples (i.e., not built in the 1920s) of buildings of similar scale being built by different developers in a neighborhood otherwise barren of high rises, I'd be happy to walk back my comments.

 

If that's all you were getting at, you probably should not have typed that these will be "closer than buildings are in any business district."  That, my friend, is laughably false, which is why I suggested you visit a business district or two.

 

By the way, I have been to the site, and if we are to be honest, one cannot really tell for sure exactly how close the two towers will be. But it appears to me that they will not be appreciably closer than (1) the two Hanover towers at Blvd Place, (2) Arabella and SkyHouse River Oaks, and (3) The RobinHood and the new tower going up next door. And all three of those pairs are completely in line, without the benefit of the east-west staggering these two will have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

Milwaukee.  These were built within two years of each other.  Circa 2004-2006.  Yes, these are two buildings, separated by mere feet and no offset.  And, yes, they look awkward together with plenty of open air all around!

06219E33-B86B-4E94-A72A-D084738828EF.jpeg

 

Do two high-rises next to each other look more awkward than one standing alone?  ;-)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Do two high-rises next to each other look more awkward than one standing alone?  ;-)

 

OK, you obviously win.  Such development is entirely desirable, certainly common the country over, and Houston can now consider itself a "real city" like Milwaukee.

Edited by mattyt36
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to stop coming to HAIF so much. Complaining about 2 high rises being too close together and implying that zoning would fix this “problem”? That post made the world a dumber place. Sorry to be rude but sometimes you just have to call stupid out.

  • Like 7
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jgriff said:

I have to stop coming to HAIF so much. Complaining about 2 high rises being too close together and implying that zoning would fix this “problem”? That post made the world a dumber place. Sorry to be rude but sometimes you just have to call stupid out.

 

That's the spirit . . . people sharing opinions about aesthetics on an architecture forum and saying the opinion makes the "world a dumber place."  You certainly have a well-developed sense of proportion and perspective.

 

(And, BTW, any link between that opinion and the mention of zoning with some sort of umbrella endorsement of zoning was entirely of your own making.)

Edited by mattyt36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, phillip_white said:

I mean, they could be closer together...

 

341-cage-gap.jpg

How do they put the siding on in between those?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel like the small gaps are worse than just sharing a dang wall 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2018 at 2:36 PM, mattyt36 said:

 

Um, buddy, those buildings are closer than any buildings of similar scale in Houston and the vast majority of other U.S. cities, probably because zoning requirements would specifically prohibit them.  Have you even seen the site?

 

 

Where this tower is sited, it'll end up roughly diagonally adjacent (corner to corner) with its neighbor, not directly side-by-side. See the rendering here.

 

W/r/t zoning preventing this sort of thing, I'd say zoning is just as likely to encourage it. See, for example, the stretch of Wilshire Blvd in LA between the 405 and Beverly Hills. Properties directly on Wilshire are zoned for high-rise, but anything adjacent is zoned for single family, which has resulted in a lot of high-rises side-by-side along Wilshire surrounded by blocks of low-density single-family houses. It looks kind of ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, how is this bad again? There are already taller buildings (albeit inconsistently) along Montrose Boulevard. And why is inconsistency inherently bad? And why are two towers immediately next to each other worse than one? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the residents of each, it would be more considerate if the towers had a little more separation, like at least a couple blocks.  In places like downtown, it is completely understandable when high-rises are right next to each other.  But in lower density areas, it's always nicer for the residents when your view isn't needlessly obscured, so building farther away from existing high-rises would be nicer.  Another good example of this is the new tower going up in the Rice Village (though that's more of a spite thing).  Of course, a good view isn't going to last forever, but when there are still so many other places to build, it's not ideal when two high rises go up on the same block when surrounded by low rises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Wait, how is this bad again? There are already taller buildings (albeit inconsistently) along Montrose Boulevard. And why is inconsistency inherently bad? And why are two towers immediately next to each other worse than one? 

 

This will be the tallest building on Montrose by 5 stories. the next tallest is the Hanover right next to it... It will be imposing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rechlin said:

For the residents of each, it would be more considerate if the towers had a little more separation, like at least a couple blocks.  In places like downtown, it is completely understandable when high-rises are right next to each other.  But in lower density areas, it's always nicer for the residents when your view isn't needlessly obscured, so building farther away from existing high-rises would be nicer.  Another good example of this is the new tower going up in the Rice Village (though that's more of a spite thing).  Of course, a good view isn't going to last forever, but when there are still so many other places to build, it's not ideal when two high rises go up on the same block when surrounded by low rises.

In all fairness to the developers of the senior tower in the Village. They have no beef with  the residents or management of the existing tower. It was the former owner who had a long feud running with the towers residents and management. He might have sold it to this group out of spite, but I don't think that was something these developers even cared about.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tower crane base is set. Until I can figure out a way to post my pics from my iPhone to my Imgur app on my iPhone or iPad and get the necessary links needed to insert them here I guess you’re going to have take my word for it. My iMac desktop screen won’t come on when I start up the computer and I don’t want to buy another till Apple comes up with a new one. Mac Rumors rates iMacs as a “ Don’t Buy” for now.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hindesky said:

Tower crane base is set. Until I can figure out a way to post my pics from my iPhone to my Imgur app on my iPhone or iPad and get the necessary links needed to insert them here I guess you’re going to have take my word for it. My iMac desktop screen won’t come on when I start up the computer and I don’t want to buy another till Apple comes up with a new one. Mac Rumors rates iMacs as a “ Don’t Buy” for now.

 

Should know tomorrow what the deal is and what the next Mac lineup looks like.

 

Ok back to the construction thread

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drove down Yoakum today and took time to look at the foot print and there is actually a fair amount of space between the north side of this tower and the south side

of the Hanover. Also the Hanover's garage extends south maybe a hundred feet out from the actual tower.

Also the  east west  offset front and back of the lot is fairly substantial. With the Hanover hugging Montrose and this tower situated much closer to Yoakum there is much more distance between the two than the angle the rendering described.

In other words there is a lot more opportunity for Hanover residents to retain a good view. 

Annunciation Church is really going to be a stunning edifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Down the street having a beer. Want to go take photos but I doubt my date would approve. All dates should end with visiting a construction site :ninja:

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...