Greenway Plaza Campus (Buildings 1-21) Developments

[Rammer]

Unless you're talking about a different Koch Building it certainly does.

This is the picture from the KS&T website:

Which seems to be pretty clearly visible in the overhead (NW corner of Cummins and Norfolk):

Google Maps

Is the parking garage in between the two some kid of Google mirage?

Now that's some creative architecture!

[RedScare]

Now that's some creative architecture!

I'm proud to say that I helped install the lighting and electrical systems in this gem back when it was built in 1983. It was known as the Houston Design Center then. It looked much better prior to the installation of those square windows in the black glass.

[barracuda]

Exactly. As I've explained before elsewhere on HAIF, there is no great media conspiracy. Contrary to what lazy Hollywood writers would have you believe, journalists from all the different television stations, newspapers, and radio stations don't get together in some big conspiracy to run people's lives.

The last time I tried to explain it in a rational manner a bunch of HAIFers got upset that it didn't fit their conspiracy theories of how the world works and they actually quit HAIF.

"The media" is a catch-all that enables people to avoid taking responsibility for their lives, or to place blame on some invisible boogieman so they can feel better about being unable to change things.

• Your presidential candidate didn't win? Blame "the media."
  
• Tivo stopped recording before the end of your favorite TV show? Blame "the media."
  
• Too much violence and pain on the TV news? Blame "the media" for sensationalizing the news.
  
• Too many kittens and puppies on the TV news? Blame "the media" for trivializing the news.
  
• News stories too long for you to sit through an entire newscast? Blame "the media" for being old and out of touch.
  
• News stories too short for you to get a full idea of what's going on? Blame "the media" for glossing over important stories.
  
• Your garage band sucks too hard to get a record contract? Blame "the media" for only promoting mindless pop music.
  
• Too many crappy garage bands on the radio? Blame "the media" for not putting anything good on the radio.
  
• Newspaper publishes too many stories from countries you can't pronounce? Blame "the media" for being cheap and running lots of wire stories.
  
• Newspaper doesn't care that your neighbor parks on your lawn? Blame "the media" for not taking an interest in local news.
  
• TV station doesn't believe that Jesus got your cat pregnant?* Blame "the media" for conspiring against humanity.
  

Perhaps it comes from the culture of self-entitlement that so many people who grew up after 1960 are wallowing in. They expect so much to be handed to them on a silver platter, and when it isn't the reason isn't that life is hard or that they didn't try hard enough. The excuse is that there's some conspiracy working against them. It used to be "the Russians!" Then it was "the gub'ment!" Now "the media!" is the catch-all excuse for one's failures in life.

I've been out of television news for 16 months now. I would never go back. Not because of how "the media" is, but because of how "the viewers" are. If every person who complained about the quality of television programming would donate $10 to PBS, things would be vastly different. But for the most part TV viewers are lazy and cheap. You've been given exactly what you asked for, and you get what you deserve.

(* When I worked in Cincinnati there was a woman who would call at least once a week claiming that we HAD to rush a TV crew over to her house because Jesus got her cat pregnant. Poor kitty was pregnant for all of the 18 months I worked in that market, but I never sent anyone over to look at the fuzzball. Every once in a while she would complain about the "media conspiracy" to keep her quiet about what Jesus had done to her cat. I once told her that we were too busy painting all the helicopters black, and she seemed to accept that for a while.)

If anyone has any specific questions about how "the media"works, feel free to PM me. I'll respond if you're not a raving lunatic. Until then --

To add to your hijack...I think there are plenty of cases where certain people or businesses are depicted as monolithic entities with singular missions. The same thing has happened to liberals, conservatives, gays, etc. Defining groups under one label with one mission works both ways. People can organize together to advance social or business purposes, but for some it provides a means to oversimplify a situation and sometimes to inflame others against said entity, like blaming the media for making a V.P. candidate look bad or for failing to cover an event.

I experienced this recently when I heard some folks on satellite radio bash the entire state of Texas following Governor Perry's comments about seceding. Why would anyone think that Gov. Perry's idiotic comments were representative of the entire state? Texas is not a monolithic entity of thought, but rather a state of roughly 25 million people coming from different backgrounds and different perspectives.

The media is comprised of a diverse group of different entities and people with differing perspectives and goals. However, any given media outlet is going to have a certain level of editorial control. When a single media outlet orchestrates a political event, as happened last week, they are clearly trying to run people's lives and force feed pre-digested opinions to their viewers. Fortunately there are plenty of alternatives, and I think some media outlets do really try to be independent and refrain from bias in their reporting.

[TheNiche]

One thing I never understood about TV news, when they go to a scene they always seem to interview the dorkiest and most ignorant person around. Half the time I can't understand what the hell they are even saying and rarely do they actually offer some insight to the event. Do they actively seek these people out or are they the only ones that will agree to an interview?

Think about it. Interviews typically have to be made during the workday. Just what kind of person tends to be at home or has time to spare while they're on the job? Follow that up with the simple reality that pulling together some kind of cogent and insightful commentary at the spur of the moment just doesn't come easily, even to very bright and otherwise articulate people.

[TheNiche]

...I think some media outlets do really try to be independent and refrain from bias in their reporting.

I disagree very much. It is impossible for a media outlet to be without a perspective, and no matter how news is reported, there will always be some person or organization that claim that it is a flawed perspective. Even a media channel that tried to come in perfectly on center with American public opinion would be criticized by the far left and far right for being biased in favor of their opponents. Likewise, there are no doubt people who are so far left (card-carrying Communists, for instance) that Air America offends them, for instance because the commentators on there won't completely shed the concept of a nuclear family or call for a government-enforced ban on religion.

Arguments over bias are inherently flawed; there can be no news without some perspective on the issues presented, and there will always be individuals that have a different perspective, thereby ensuring that the elimination of bias cannot ever be achieved.

[editor]

One thing I never understood about TV news, when they go to a scene they always seem to interview the dorkiest and most ignorant person around. Half the time I can't understand what the hell they are even saying and rarely do they actually offer some insight to the event. Do they actively seek these people out or are they the only ones that will agree to an interview?

Your average non-dorky individual usually has a job and a more important things to do than stand around gawking at police cars, so the intelligent people usually filter themselves out of the equation. Even when reporters are in a neighborhood, the average person hides behind his curtains and doesn't come out. For the most part its those people who are attracted by flashy lights who linger at crime scenes.

[cottonmather0]

Edwards and Koch DO share the garage, but AFAIK there isn't a separate side thing. The elavators for the Edwards and for the Koch are on opposite sides, though. AFAIK the workers park in that garage during the day, while the theater patrons use it during the night.

Thanks. Like I said, this person must be arguing some kind of technicality.

You are correct that there are no "sides" - all I was trying to say was that there are doors to Edwards on the west side and doors to Koch on the east side and patrons of both buildings park there.

When a garage is constructed between two buildings with entrances on each side, that's "sharing" the garage according to my definition.

[editor]

I disagree very much. It is impossible for a media outlet to be without a perspective,

This is incorrect. It depends on who's running the operation and how that person manages the people under him.

I've heard of newsrooms that were very tightly controlled and where the writers, reporters, and producers were encouraged a particular way.

I've worked in newsrooms where the people weren't tightly controlled, but formed their own consensus/groupthink/peer pressure to choose particular stories over others.

I've also worked in newsrooms where the management worked very hard to maintain a neutral position and went so far as to make sure that every reporter piece was checked by a manager for facts and balance. Most items written by writers and producers were also checked, when time allotted. It can be done. It wasn't that long ago that newsrooms had dedicated people just for this sort of thing, but they were first to get canned in the budget cuts of the 80's.

and no matter how news is reported, there will always be some person or organization that claim that it is a flawed perspective.

This is correct. Even a perfectly balanced story, or one that merely states facts with no perspective, will be viewed by some nutjob somewhere as having bias. I could broadcast a three-line story about a car crash and get calls from a local auto dealership complaining that I was calling a particular brand of car unsafe. Too many people are unhinged, and telephones are too easy to dial.

[editor]

Arguments over bias are inherently flawed; there can be no news without some perspective on the issues presented.

I'll take that as a challenge.

In Tomball this morning six people were killed when their van rolled over into a drainage ditch. The driver was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and is expected to be arraigned tomorrow. The families of the victims are gathering tonight near the scene of the crash for a memorial service.

Show me the bias.

[TheNiche]

This is incorrect. It depends on who's running the operation and how that person manages the people under him.

I've heard of newsrooms that were very tightly controlled and where the writers, reporters, and producers were encouraged a particular way.

I've worked in newsrooms where the people weren't tightly controlled, but formed their own consensus/groupthink/peer pressure to choose particular stories over others.

I've also worked in newsrooms where the management worked very hard to maintain a neutral position and went so far as to make sure that every reporter piece was checked by a manager for facts and balance. Most items written by writers and producers were also checked, when time allotted. It can be done. It wasn't that long ago that newsrooms had dedicated people just for this sort of thing, but they were first to get canned in the budget cuts of the 80's.

Even a perfectly balanced story, or one that merely states facts with no perspective, will be viewed by some nutjob somewhere as having bias. I could broadcast a three-line story about a car crash and get calls from a local auto dealership complaining that I was calling a particular brand of car unsafe. Too many people are unhinged, and telephones are too easy to dial.

You've misunderstood me. I posited that, "It is impossible for a media outlet to be without a perspective," and I stand by that statement. To be perfectly clear, I'm talking about a media outlet, for instance the Houston Chronicle or KHOU, not individual reporters and not individual stories (such as the one you provided for me in post #37).

If a media outlet sets a goal that it desires to be successful at targeting the average member of a culture, which is a perspective that would make it balanced, it still will fail to satisfy the full spectrum of viewers or prospective viewers as being unbiased.

Balance is different from bias. Balance is about the media outlet providing content that appeals to the average person. Bias is about the media outlet providing content such as has the potential to influence people in a particular way to the exclusion of another. A balanced media outlet reflects and reinforces the average person's values, but that is biased against the interests of people whose values are not squarely in the middle of society.

Make sense?

[editor]

I was with you up to here.

Balance is different from bias. Balance is about the media outlet providing content that appeals to the average person. Bias is about the media outlet providing content such as has the potential to influence people in a particular way to the exclusion of another. A balanced media outlet reflects and reinforces the average person's values, but that is biased against the interests of people whose values are not squarely in the middle of society.

I've never heard the word "balance" used in that fashion.

[TheNiche]

I was with you up to here.

I've never heard the word "balance" used in that fashion.

We can dispute the precise definition of "balance" if you want to make it a semantic argument, but is the basic concept that balance is the middle of the spectrum agreeable to you?

[Fringe]

Think about it. Interviews typically have to be made during the workday. Just what kind of person tends to be at home or has time to spare while they're on the job? Follow that up with the simple reality that pulling together some kind of cogent and insightful commentary at the spur of the moment just doesn't come easily, even to very bright and otherwise articulate people.

Your average non-dorky individual usually has a job and a more important things to do than stand around gawking at police cars, so the intelligent people usually filter themselves out of the equation. Even when reporters are in a neighborhood, the average person hides behind his curtains and doesn't come out. For the most part its those people who are attracted by flashy lights who linger at crime scenes.

I'll accept those answers but that begs the question: why bother?

[texas911]

Yup, went to few great parties and ate at the restaurant up on the top floor when it was the Innova building. Freaking fantastic building before it was converted to an office building.

[EMME]

The media does have several lines a good journalist won't cross. Another one is AA meeting anonymity. You don't read what celebs say in meetings, and those are open to anyone and yes, celebs do go and they do talk. I wrote a letter to the editor to People magazine in the early 90s regarding alcoholism and I signed it with my first name and last initial. When they published it, they signed it Anonymous.

[editor]

I'll accept those answers but that begs the question: why bother?

[Fringe]

Because surveys of viewers show that people want to see real people in the news. They object to it just being a monolithic top-down anchor and reporter and spokesperson telling what's going on. Time and time again audience tests show that people react well when they see reporters talking to yokels on the street. The reporters don't want to do it. The producers don't want to air it. But the consultants have the hard numbers which show that the viewers want to be "connected" to the news in this way (and others). It's awful, but millions of dollars are spent each year on this kind of testing, and the stations and their consulting groups need to get their money's worth.

Thanks for the insight and I guess when you realize the number one show on TV is American Idol than that tells me what the "typical" viewer is. So I guess they need to dumb-down the news to an IQ below a turnip.

[John Rich]

I never said that it has to be someone famous for "the media" to "care." Those are your words, not mine. Sometimes suicides are news when the news value of the person or event outweighs the family's right to privacy. For example, if a state senator were to kill himself, that's certainly more newsworthy and will be broadcast, compared to some random emo kid offing himself in his bedroom.

Which reinforces what I said. It's not about respect. It's about how "newsworthy" it is. You imply that they don't publish the random emo kid suicides out of respect - when in fact, it's just not news in a big city like Houston. Nobody cares outside the immediate family. It doesn't sell papers. The famous person, on the other hand, oh yeah, Americans love to read that crap. You're reminded of that fact every time you stand in the checkout line at the supermarket. News about famous people sells. So it's not about respect for the little guys - nobody wants to read news about little people.

And it doesn't have to be a celebrity, as I noted before. An example of this is the nutjob who back in the late 90's climbed up the outside of the Williams Tower before doing himself in. In the process he screwed up the entire morning rush for half the city. That made it a newsworthy event.

Once again, you're reinforcing my point. The criteria for withholding the story has nothing to do with respect. It has to do with how sensational it is, and how many people are interested in it.

I'd like to know what it is that you do for a living so I can make up cynical theories and pretend to know what imaginary conspiracies motivate you and the people you work with and then splatter them all over the internet pretending I know what I'm talking about. So, how 'bout it? Is turnabout fair play?

I said nothing about any conspiracies, so you're making up a strawman argument there. I'm just talking about reality, and what I've observed over many decades of life between what happens in the real world, and what makes it into a news story. There are certain principles that apply. Like; the further from home the story is, the less people care. A hundred deaths in an apartment fire in Houston will make major news. A hundred deaths in an apartment fire in Bangladesh won't get a mention. There's truth to the old saying; "If it bleeds, it leads". That's the real world. By the same token, run of the mill suicides aren't reported in the big city because there are too many of them and nobody cares to read about it. Not because the news media intentionally withholds information out of respect for the families. In small towns, on the other hand, events are scarce enough that everything gets reported. The police blotter report, for example, is full of routine crimes, naming names. Do they withhold those out of respect for the families of errant criminals? Nope. Reality.

Likewise, if someone dies in a routine car crash, and on the same day a skydiver dies in a 13,000-foot plunge, which fatality is going to get the attention of the media? The skydiver, because it's sensational. Respect be damned.

Edited April 22, 2009 by John Rich

[TheNiche]

Likewise, if someone dies in a routine car crash, and on the same day a skydiver dies in a 13,000-foot plunge, which fatality is going to get the attention of the media? The skydiver, because it's sensational. Respect be damned.

But that's Editor's point, more or less, and it is a sound one. People like hearing about suicide jumpers from highrises...clearly a sensational event, yet you don't hear about it. There is a reason, even if I personally don't consider it justified. ...and this is coming from someone whose half-brother jumped to his death from the rooftop of a hotel in Austin.

Edited April 22, 2009 by TheNiche

[John Rich]

But that's Editor's point, more or less, and it is a sound one. People like hearing about suicide jumpers from highrises...clearly a sensational event, yet you don't hear about it. There is a reason, even if I personally don't consider it justified.

30,000 people commit suicide in America each year - 82 per day. But it's rare to ever read or hear of one in big-city news. For the most part, they just aren't considered "news" - they're too common and routine. "News" has to be new, or different.

On the other hand, look at the Freddie Mac CFO that committed suicide overnight - that one will be splashed all over the place. But he's just one of 82 that committed suicide yestereday. So why is his death somehow more important for everyone to know about, then all the others? Every one of those suicides is a tragedy, with grieving family and friends left behind. There's a story behind every one.

And if a story that would normally fill the bill for publication is somehow withheld, then perhaps the news folks are being biased in their presentation of the news to the public. If they're going to do it under a certain set of circumstances to everyone else, then they shouldn't make exceptions in cases where the death strikes too close to home - that's media bias. And once they start doing that, then the public doesn't really have a true picture of what's happening.

Don't withhold facts. Print all of the facts, and let the chips fall where they may.

Edited April 22, 2009 by John Rich

[TheNiche]

30,000 people commit suicide in America each year - 82 per day. But it's rare to ever read or hear of one in big-city news. For the most part, they just aren't considered "news" - they're too common and routine. "News" has to be new, or different.

On the other hand, look at the Freddie Mac CFO that committed suicide overnight - that one will be splashed all over the place. But he's just one of 82 that committed suicide yestereday. So why is his death somehow more important for everyone to know about, then all the others? Every one of those suicides is a tragedy, with grieving family and friends left behind. There's a story behind every one.

The number of murders per year in the United States has been holding fairly steady in the 15,000-17,000 range since 2000, and they get reported on dutifully. I'm not saying that every melodramatic closet suicide done out of shame in a person's own home is newsworthy. Most of them are very boring. But when it is done in a public place, especially from a skyscraper, that makes for a compelling story (not actually for content, which for television news is inherently limited, but because it excites the imagination of people who share common experiences in that place) that happens far less frequently than murder.

You even see a fair bit on the news about aggravated assaults, which are about 29 times more common than suicides.

[lockmat]

Nice...

Year: 2012

The existing Greenway Plaza development has not been either updated in terms of finishes and functions nor a new building added for over 20 years. This work seeks to reposition the entire east block of the project as well as study alternative locations for a minimum of a 500,00 SF addition and the necessary parking (at 4:1). As transit evolves in Houston, a more pedestrian character will emerge at the adjacent station on Richmond. New entry portals will address this evolution in a more pedestrian friendly manner. The heart of the campus will become an arrival park with new frontages for each building attached towards this landscaped area. Besides studies for a new tower, a dramatic low rise restaurant or institute building is also explored.

http://richardkeatingarchitecture.com/projects/drawings/170/

[lockmat]

This overall plan seems to be legit, I'm curious when they plan to implement it.

[TowerSpotter]

This overall plan seems to be legit, I'm curious when they plan to implement it.

Yea it is a pretty interesting project, I would love to see that area redeveloped.

[swtsig]

the project is being quietly (or not so quietly shopped) so this would be tenative on the buyer i assume. that said, they have kicked around a new tower and retail on or near this site for many years.

[Mab]

Nancy Sarnoff ‏@nsarnoff1m

Houston's Greenway Plaza is being sold to Cousins Properties.

[lockmat]

Wow, pretty huge transaction it would seem.

[ClutchCity]

Culture Map has an article too that makes it seem like something is going to be devloped in Greenway. They might just be overhyping it though.

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/realestate/07-29-13-sale-of-the-century-greenway-plaza-sold-for-1-billion/

"'Greenway Plaza and 777 Main Street are an excellent fit with our portfolio as they are high- quality urban properties with ... future development potential,' said Larry Gellerstedt, president and chief executive officer of Cousins."

[lockmat]

Quite a coincidence. They bought this right after i posted these photos. Do y'all think that was a major influence in their decision? Buahahaha

I hope they still have the vision crescent did and plan on shaping it into a more urban place.

[brijonmang]

Quite a coincidence. They bought this right after i posted these photos. Do y'all think that was a major influence in their decision? Buahahaha

I hope they still have the vision crescent did and plan on shaping it into a more urban place.

Quick, post something on the stream tower!