Jump to content
groovehouse

WestMont: Mixed-Use Development Coming for Montrose (1001 Westheimer)

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

 

2 hours ago, TowerSpotter said:

 

 

 

 

8eb05b90156931.5e0f70ed6b70e.jpg

 

 

 

 

The street to the west of the site is Yoakum, not Waugh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just said "oh my good god" out loud to that. This plus the Montrose Collective is too much for my brain to process. 

 

This could be real right? Like, maybe real? Is there a gofundme to help them out?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a better shot of the SF totals:

 

978370496_Screenshot(4).png.de0beb3c8e3eed3e8e342428057dd9f7.png

 

 

This is probably something like 700+ total residential units, between MF and condo, plus maybe 150-200 hotel rooms

 

The 3D diagram would also seem to indicate 3 levels of underground parking 😲  

 

Very ambitious. Probably something like a quarter-billion dollar build, on top of the land cost (which is prob worth low-8-figures).

 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart investment though in my opinion, fingers crossed that both developments are built Close to their initial renderings. This could spur much more investment in other neighborhoods when these developments turn out to be highly successful. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TowerSpotter said:

Found this from an architect at CRKTL, posted January 3rd, 2020. Potential development could be planned for this site. Renderings show a mixed-use development with retail, multifamily, condos, and office space. 

 

The site:

 

xV5iV23.png

 

 

Renderings:

 

7a7b9e90156931.5e0f70ed6aebd.jpg

 

31ba6090156931.5e0f70ed6857a.jpg

 

8eb05b90156931.5e0f70ed6b70e.jpg

 

8fac0f90156931.5e0f70ed6a693.jpg

 

ef1e6590156931.5e0f70ed69e81.jpg


c5e03090156931.5e0f70ed68e04.jpg

2151b990156931.5e0f70ed69669.jpg

 

https://www.behance.net/gallery/90156931/Montrose-MUD-Houston-USA

 

We need these renderings on this page. I hope this is for real. It's better than anything I could imagine.

Edited by West Timer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

serious question...

will there be a considerable savings by shopping at the lower level Mattress Firm Outlet Center as opposed to the upstairs regular Mattress Firm?  The reason i ask is, there are rumors that with purchase, you get to slide on top your mattress down that sloped staircase at no extra charge and i am trying to weigh out that advantage against the discounted mattress. 

 

 

ps...wowsa this thread is making my head explode! i am a longtime Montrose area lover and just so happy they are mixing in some amazing new projects with the old Montrose i also love 

Edited by gene
  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where will half price books be?  First Rice Village, next this one...where will I go to buy 10 books for $12?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too love half price books and surely there is some other place it can move and would love for it to stay in the heart of Montrose...

however IF it had to be relocated you know where the next best spot would be? in that kooky semi abandoned plaza off Shepherd where Tuesday Morning is behind Freebirds and Amy's Ice Cream is...it would be near Cactus Records and maybe help revitalize this development...

would love to see that whole area become an alternative cool shopping area...think 19th street in the Heights. 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They just need to toss a pilates/crossfit/barre place in there and I think developers could kinda just dust their hands off, in addition to the Montrose collective, and know that most residents would never leave the area ever again (people would just request to work from home). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean as this city moves forward, this is what we can expect from here on out. Pretty soon we'll be yawning at this hahaha

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

avatars-000175122630-z4vw5m-original.jpg

^^^ not to mention, HYPER EXPENSIVE.  however, definitely a GAME CHANGER!  looks like something right out of LA.  montrose, is definitely looking up!

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do we have any idea if this the actual design or simply a conceptual or proposed design? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I maybe in the minority but I'd prefer 2-3 of these types of developments over a single high rise and trust me I love high rises. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Are we getting another Cloud Column?

WannabeColumn.jpg.e770750cfcb1fcadddfeb1655739e216.jpgCloudColumn.jpg.d43cc5a6a4a0cccdba7e1ffb43f6c577.jpg

 

 

31ba6090156931.5e0f70ed6857a.jpg

 

Some insider knowledge about putting renderings together. A lot of these things are up to the designers discretion in regards to fleshing out or filling out a "scene". More than likely the PM, PA or project designer told the person doing the render to find a "contemporary" sculpture to place in the scene. If you look in this render below:

 

Eh9CzBb.jpg

 

You will notice that the sculpture is different which means these scenes were developed at different points during the design process while they were discussing what should be placed in the scene. As a matter of fact, its funny, I've used that exact bubble sculpture in a render for house for a client who likes contemporary art in their front yard. My boss gave me certain parameters and that lead me to that sculpture.

 

1 hour ago, swtsig said:

do we have any idea if this the actual design or simply a conceptual or proposed design? 

 

Definitely a possiblity. Though in look at this its very well developed to be simply "conceptual". Just look at all the diagrams, and sqft's, and detail in the renders. This is an actual proposal with my professional eyes, but of course just because its proposed doesn't mean its going to get built (like anything proposed). With that being said, the fact that something like this is being proposed does change the game for what people might expect for what is possible on this site. Even if it changes this could have a profound effect on the land owners mind of what is possible. This is why these proposals exist, and its why architects exist because we can see things that others can't or are too stuck in their reality to see what is possible. Everything that I see in this render is very doable, and actually is very much in line with contemporary approaches to site and aesthetics.

 

To me this feels a lot like aesthetically its trying to be like Michael Hsu, and in proportion and scale its trying to be like BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group). There are of course other architects that do these things, and probably different people they pulled inspiration from, but those are immediate examples to pull from.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

 

Some insider knowledge about putting renderings together. A lot of these things are up to the designers discretion in regards to fleshing out or filling out a "scene". More than likely the PM, PA or project designer told the person doing the render to find a "contemporary" sculpture to place in the scene. If you look in this render below:

 

Eh9CzBb.jpg

 

You will notice that the sculpture is different which means these scenes were developed at different points during the design process while they were discussing what should be placed in the scene. As a matter of fact, its funny, I've used that exact bubble sculpture in a render for house for a client who likes contemporary art in their front yard. My boss gave me certain parameters and that lead me to that sculpture.

 

 

Definitely a possiblity. Though in look at this its very well developed to be simply "conceptual". Just look at all the diagrams, and sqft's, and detail in the renders. This is an actual proposal with my professional eyes, but of course just because its proposed doesn't mean its going to get built (like anything proposed). With that being said, the fact that something like this is being proposed does change the game for what people might expect for what is possible on this site. Even if it changes this could have a profound effect on the land owners mind of what is possible. This is why these proposals exist, and its why architects exist because we can see things that others can't or are too stuck in their reality to see what is possible. Everything that I see in this render is very doable, and actually is very much in line with contemporary approaches to site and aesthetics.

 

To me this feels a lot like aesthetically its trying to be like Michael Hsu, and in proportion and scale its trying to be like BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group). There are of course other architects that do these things, and probably different people they pulled inspiration from, but those are immediate examples to pull from.

 

well said and i agree. nothing about this site plan seems overly ambitious other than the overall # of mixed use components, but the design and scale seems plenty achievable. it certainly has a BIG vibe to it, especially the schematics, but also seems very approachable. I also think it would play off hsu's design at montrose collective very well.

 

fingers crossed the project ends up as shown or a very similar facsimile thereof.

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

 

Some insider knowledge about putting renderings together. A lot of these things are up to the designers discretion in regards to fleshing out or filling out a "scene". More than likely the PM, PA or project designer told the person doing the render to find a "contemporary" sculpture to place in the scene. If you look in this render below:

 

Eh9CzBb.jpg

 

You will notice that the sculpture is different which means these scenes were developed at different points during the design process while they were discussing what should be placed in the scene. As a matter of fact, its funny, I've used that exact bubble sculpture in a render for house for a client who likes contemporary art in their front yard. My boss gave me certain parameters and that lead me to that sculpture.

 

 

Definitely a possiblity. Though in look at this its very well developed to be simply "conceptual". Just look at all the diagrams, and sqft's, and detail in the renders. This is an actual proposal with my professional eyes, but of course just because its proposed doesn't mean its going to get built (like anything proposed). With that being said, the fact that something like this is being proposed does change the game for what people might expect for what is possible on this site. Even if it changes this could have a profound effect on the land owners mind of what is possible. This is why these proposals exist, and its why architects exist because we can see things that others can't or are too stuck in their reality to see what is possible. Everything that I see in this render is very doable, and actually is very much in line with contemporary approaches to site and aesthetics.

 

To me this feels a lot like aesthetically its trying to be like Michael Hsu, and in proportion and scale its trying to be like BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group). There are of course other architects that do these things, and probably different people they pulled inspiration from, but those are immediate examples to pull from.

Yeah this is too developed to just be a concept. This is a real possibility give or take a few small details. What shop do you work for Luminare? I'm in the Heights off 18th.

Edited by j_cuevas713
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2020 at 2:37 PM, Luminare said:

 

Some insider knowledge about putting renderings together. A lot of these things are up to the designers discretion in regards to fleshing out or filling out a "scene". More than likely the PM, PA or project designer told the person doing the render to find a "contemporary" sculpture to place in the scene. If you look in this render below:

 

Eh9CzBb.jpg

 

You will notice that the sculpture is different which means these scenes were developed at different points during the design process while they were discussing what should be placed in the scene. As a matter of fact, its funny, I've used that exact bubble sculpture in a render for house for a client who likes contemporary art in their front yard. My boss gave me certain parameters and that lead me to that sculpture.

 

 

Definitely a possiblity. Though in look at this its very well developed to be simply "conceptual". Just look at all the diagrams, and sqft's, and detail in the renders. This is an actual proposal with my professional eyes, but of course just because its proposed doesn't mean its going to get built (like anything proposed). With that being said, the fact that something like this is being proposed does change the game for what people might expect for what is possible on this site. Even if it changes this could have a profound effect on the land owners mind of what is possible. This is why these proposals exist, and its why architects exist because we can see things that others can't or are too stuck in their reality to see what is possible. Everything that I see in this render is very doable, and actually is very much in line with contemporary approaches to site and aesthetics.

 

To me this feels a lot like aesthetically its trying to be like Michael Hsu, and in proportion and scale its trying to be like BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group). There are of course other architects that do these things, and probably different people they pulled inspiration from, but those are immediate examples to pull from.

 

Well said. I also agree with what you've said. This is most likely at the end of their SD phase. It's most likely going through a round of schematic pricing to see roughly where the cost is. Then it'll more through value engineering. I expect to see another round of renderings after this that have a little more realism to the materials and structural realities (looking at you 50 ft cantilever).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone think this thing embodies bad urban planning principals?

 

It's riddled with various private courtyards and plazas which cannot realistically be activated with retail at Houston densities during the 2020's brick and mortar extinction event. In the most optimistic scenario it will create a private, hidden interior mall that dilutes street activity similar to the tunnels and skywalks downtown. In the most likely scenario, those spaces never get filled, and they have to pay some security guard to keep the bums out.

 

Plus it is UGLY. It's dissonant, top heavy, jumbled. It's the urban condo equivalent to those weird looking McMansions that have random dormers and cornices and are just silly.

Edited by zaphod
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Quit being ridiculous. I see storefronts or at least windows facing the streets. It looks inviting as hell from the Westheimer/Montrose intersection. How dare you compare this to the tunnels. Ugly? Seriously, was that supposed to be a joke? What we've been living with for half a century could win a prize for ugly.  Houston would be lucky to end up with anything that comes close to that rendering at that intersection.

Edited by West Timer
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

^ Quit being ridiculous. 

No offense, but with that comment and especially with the laughing smiley reaction, you're being a bit of an a... well, you get the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, zaphod said:

Does anyone think this thing embodies bad urban planning principals?

 

It's riddled with various private courtyards and plazas which cannot realistically be activated with retail at Houston densities during the 2020's brick and mortar extinction event. In the most optimistic scenario it will create a private, hidden interior mall that dilutes street activity similar to the tunnels and skywalks downtown. In the most likely scenario, those spaces never get filled, and they have to pay some security guard to keep the bums out.

 

Plus it is UGLY. It's dissonant, top heavy, jumbled. It's the urban condo equivalent to those weird looking McMansions that have random dormers and cornices and are just silly.

The fact you think this is ugly makes me wonder how bad your taste must actually be lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No offense, but with that comment and especially with the laughing smiley reaction, you're being a bit of an a... well, you get the point.

Yes I am being a... but it beats being a...well you get the point.

Edited by West Timer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see the in the rendering is a big stairway that will probably be value engineered out of existence, and a big interior courtyard with all the current trendy stuff like wood siding that will look goofy in 10 years. People ain't going up there with their dogs, not to visit the one super expensive creperie or designer purse store that goes out of business 6 months later.

 

I've visited developments like this in person and they are usually really disappointing. Like Seaholm in Austin. There's nothing interesting there and it seemed like current tenants were struggling, and the whole time I was walking around people were staring at me like I was trespassing. Uptown Dallas has a lot of overbearing weird glassy towers hulking over dead streets with too much car traffic too. Compare the vibrancy of more traditionally urban streetscapes and there is no comparison.

Edited by zaphod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that generally raised plazas are not terribly successful (see Jones Plaza downtown). At the same time, I applaud any project that doesn’t simply build a tower atop a parking garage with zero pedestrian considerations. Personally, the big cantilevered (top heavy) massing is what I like about the renderings.

Edited by DarklyMoron
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, West Timer said:

It looks inviting as hell from the Westheimer/Montrose intersection.

 

I definitely agree that it's better than what's currently there, and better than just sticking an apartment tower (or two) on the spot. My concern is that its scale is too big for that intersection. Neither Montrose nor Westheimer are as expansive as that rendering makes them look. 

 

Now, if they put giant billboards and neon on it and make Montrose at Westheimer a mini Times Square or a mini Yonge-Dundas Square (Toronto) I'm all in!

Edited by MidCenturyMoldy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree on the scale. Montrose is quite wide, and even the City's plan to rebuild Westheimer keeps it 2 lanes each direction *plus* turn lanes at that intersection for some reason. I might quibble with the tower furthest west along Westheimer at the site; it might be better to step the whole thing down from Montrose Blvd instead. But I actually like the idea of a relatively massive development to anchor this oversized intersection.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

What I see the in the rendering is a big stairway that will probably be value engineered out of existence, and a big interior courtyard with all the current trendy stuff like wood siding that will look goofy in 10 years. People ain't going up there with their dogs, not to visit the one super expensive creperie or designer purse store that goes out of business 6 months later.

 

I've visited developments like this in person and they are usually really disappointing. Like Seaholm in Austin. There's nothing interesting there and it seemed like current tenants were struggling, and the whole time I was walking around people were staring at me like I was trespassing. Uptown Dallas has a lot of overbearing weird glassy towers hulking over dead streets with too much car traffic too. Compare the vibrancy of more traditionally urban streetscapes and there is no comparison.

 

I wouldn't mind if they just built a wide tree-lined sidewalk, then did some mixed-use with GFR and hotel/office/residential above, and put a parking garage behind it all or underground. No opening up to an interior courtyard. The best urban environments in the world are just big sidewalks with zero-setback mixed-use buildings and no interior plazas (most of Paris, London, New York, etc.). The intersection is your plaza.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived by this corner for three years and this is amazing. The corner is a mess and ugly. Went to the Specs and Half Price Books there all the time. Even the emergency center a couple times. It is such an ugly corner and this would really help. Now fix the Valero corner.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, zaphod said:

Does anyone think this thing embodies bad urban planning principals?

 

 

 

I think pretty much the exact opposite.

 

Like most American cities, Houston suffers from overly wide rights of way. Distance between facades near this project on both Westheimer and Montrose is 90 feet or more. It's very difficult to create a low-stress pedestrian-focused environment when the RoW is so wide. One of the very few ways to create human-scale pedestrian areas, therefore, is within large blocks. (See the Laneways development in Midtown, for example.) 

 

The other thing you see with this layout is that the central courtyard is much more like a traditional European square than it is an American park, since it's surrounded on all sides with buildings, not streets. This gives it a much more intimate, quiet feel. And the grade separation from the two busy roadways should help.

 

Finally, all of this doesn't come at the expense of a hostile streetscape. The outside-facing facades appear to be transparent and activated, and the setbacks are right up against the pedestrian realm. And at this address, they should be able to find tenants for the retail. Even the parking is underground or otherwise hidden from view. 

 

Some of the materials and massing might not be entirely to my taste, but from an urbanism standpoint, it's pretty outstanding.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Angostura said:

 

 

I think pretty much the exact opposite.

 

Like most American cities, Houston suffers from overly wide rights of way. Distance between facades near this project on both Westheimer and Montrose is 90 feet or more. It's very difficult to create a low-stress pedestrian-focused environment when the RoW is so wide. One of the very few ways to create human-scale pedestrian areas, therefore, is within large blocks. (See the Laneways development in Midtown, for example.) 

 

The other thing you see with this layout is that the central courtyard is much more like a traditional European square than it is an American park, since it's surrounded on all sides with buildings, not streets. This gives it a much more intimate, quiet feel. And the grade separation from the two busy roadways should help.

 

Finally, all of this doesn't come at the expense of a hostile streetscape. The outside-facing facades appear to be transparent and activated, and the setbacks are right up against the pedestrian realm. And at this address, they should be able to find tenants for the retail. Even the parking is underground or otherwise hidden from view. 

 

Some of the materials and massing might not be entirely to my taste, but from an urbanism standpoint, it's pretty outstanding.

 

I think this is an interesting post but I don't see why a façade distance of 90 feet is a problem in this context. Montrose and Westheimer are major boulevards, hence one would expect "grand boulevard" urbanism rather than "intimate neighborhood" urbanism. Façade distances on Parisian boulevards are often well in excess of 90 feet, with Boulevard St. Germain at 100 feet and Champs d'Elysees at 210 feet.

 

It is true that Houston developers are primarily turning inward (or an outward/inward hybrid) in their urban developments as with Laneways as well as the Zadok jewelers building and Montrose Collective. I think this is partially due to a lingering "fear of the street" that is exacerbated by our lack of zoning. But it also seems like a mini-version of the larger all-in-one urban environments built by a single developer that try to provide everything and end up as false, self-contained bubbles.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I wouldn't mind if they just built a wide tree-lined sidewalk, then did some mixed-use with GFR and hotel/office/residential above, and put a parking garage behind it all or underground. No opening up to an interior courtyard. The best urban environments in the world are just big sidewalks with zero-setback mixed-use buildings and no interior plazas (most of Paris, London, New York, etc.). The intersection is your plaza.

 

 

Agree with the general premise, but interior courtyards are one of the more fun urban conditions in cities, at least the ones I've visited from Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, to London, Paris, and Rome. There is a special kind of feeling when you stumble into an interior courtyard that is a refreshing refugee from all the noise on the street (and I'm a guy that loves the noise of city streets). Theres a unique sense of discovery when you walk into spaces like these. Houston has moments like this as well, but just with low rise residential and commerical, so its not out of the realm of possiblity, and these spaces are successful. What makes this property unique more than others is the fact that people do actually walk this intersection/area of Montrose. Its one of the few areas in the city with some elements of foot traffic in the traditional sense. Once again, completely agree with the general premise, but interior courtyards shouldn't be dismissed.

 

36 minutes ago, Angostura said:

 

 

I think pretty much the exact opposite.

 

Like most American cities, Houston suffers from overly wide rights of way. Distance between facades near this project on both Westheimer and Montrose is 90 feet or more. It's very difficult to create a low-stress pedestrian-focused environment when the RoW is so wide. One of the very few ways to create human-scale pedestrian areas, therefore, is within large blocks. (See the Laneways development in Midtown, for example.) 

 

The other thing you see with this layout is that the central courtyard is much more like a traditional European square than it is an American park, since it's surrounded on all sides with buildings, not streets. This gives it a much more intimate, quiet feel. And the grade separation from the two busy roadways should help.

 

Finally, all of this doesn't come at the expense of a hostile streetscape. The outside-facing facades appear to be transparent and activated, and the setbacks are right up against the pedestrian realm. And at this address, they should be able to find tenants for the retail. Even the parking is underground or otherwise hidden from view. 

 

Some of the materials and massing might not be entirely to my taste, but from an urbanism standpoint, it's pretty outstanding.

 

Again agree with the general premise, but will say this is more akin to traditional european interior court yards than squares, but they are both very similar. The concept of the interior courtyard or atrium would actually work with the climate here very well too.

 

17 hours ago, architeckton said:

 

Well said. I also agree with what you've said. This is most likely at the end of their SD phase. It's most likely going through a round of schematic pricing to see roughly where the cost is. Then it'll more through value engineering. I expect to see another round of renderings after this that have a little more realism to the materials and structural realities (looking at you 50 ft cantilever).

 

Depends on the architect, right? I don't know this architects work very well so I don't know if they know how to do these kinds of cantilevers as well as the curvy glass within the cantilever (looks very Thomas Heatherwick or Herzog de Meuron). Again, agree with you as well, even if they just built the first 4-5 stories this would be a success. With this being such prime real estate though I can imagine something marquee with cantilevers going here.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Agree with the general premise, but interior courtyards are one of the more fun urban conditions in cities, at least the ones I've visited from Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, to London, Paris, and Rome. There is a special kind of feeling when you stumble into an interior courtyard that is a refreshing refugee from all the noise on the street (and I'm a guy that loves the noise of city streets). Theres a unique sense of discovery when you walk into spaces like these.

 

I agree - these tend to be like a "quiet from the storm" when there are busy pedestrian thoroughfares outside. We don't really have the storm yet, but we are building these inner plazas right and left (see my last post). You could end up with a similar phenomenon to that of back yards sucking the life out of front yards and the street. Houston is transitioning from a city of private environments to the slow emergence of a public environment, but we are hesitant to fully make that transition.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I think this is an interesting post but I don't see why a façade distance of 90 feet is a problem in this context. Montrose and Westheimer are major boulevards, hence one would expect "grand boulevard" urbanism rather than "intimate neighborhood" urbanism. Façade distances on Parisian boulevards are often well in excess of 90 feet, with Boulevard St. Germain at 100 feet and Champs d'Elysees at 210 feet.

 

 

 

Yes, there are wide streets in these places, and one would expect streets like Westheimer and Montrose to be relatively wide, but if you take a few steps off of one of the grand avenues in Paris, and you'll find yourself on streets that are 30 feet or less between facades. There are no such streets in most American cities. 

 

Take rapidly-densifying EaDo: all the streets are 70-ft ROW, plus a 5-ft building line (mininum), which means the distance between facades is never much less than 80 feet, almost 3X that of a typical pre-19th century side street. So the ONLY place you can put this kind of space is internal to a development.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Yes, there are wide streets in these places, and one would expect streets like Westheimer and Montrose to be relatively wide, but if you take a few steps off of one of the grand avenues in Paris, and you'll find yourself on streets that are 30 feet or less between facades. There are no such streets in most American cities. 

 

Take rapidly-densifying EaDo: all the streets are 70-ft ROW, plus a 5-ft building line (mininum), which means the distance between facades is never much less than 80 feet, almost 3X that of a typical pre-19th century side street. So the ONLY place you can put this kind of space is internal to a development.

 

 

This is a fair point although I'm not sure if a plaza that mostly exists to draw patrons to expensive shops will effectively take the place of the narrow medieval side streets of Paris with their proletarian feel. Perhaps in a hundred years the side streets of Montrose will be densely built with short façade distances. But I see that there is a need for respite from a busy boulevard. I just worry that this development will turn its best face inward (retailers typically hate having multiple entrances due to security concerns) and it will end up like Houston Pavilions.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand fully what you mean by the quiet from the storm having recently visited New Orleans. Those courtyard restaurants and stores are a welcomed reprive from the jubilant atmosphere on Royal and Bourbon streets. 

 

For such a dirty, smelly and wild neighborhood, the intimacy In the design is magical

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I understand fully what you mean by the quiet from the storm having recently visited New Orleans. Those courtyard restaurants and stores are a welcomed reprive from the jubilant atmosphere on Royal and Bourbon streets. 

 

For such a dirty, smelly and wild neighborhood, the intimacy In the design is magical

 

Good point, although those are even more intimate than this will be. If we can get some genuine courtyard restaurants with outdoor seating, they can build plazas all day long as far as I'm concerned. Of note, the French Quarter is one of those few American places that has the 30' distance between facades that Ango is talking about. A far cry from the downtown Houston historic district's 75'. Those French...

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no need to argue about the merits of this design, this won't be it. this was simply a proposal.

 

carry on.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

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...