BLVD Place Mixed-Use: 1700 Post Oak Blvd & Upcoming Development At 1800 Post Oak Blvd.

[NewMND]

3-5 decades?! Who has that kind of time! I can't wait until 2050 to see those downtown blocks get filled up, I'll be senile by then and won't even know what's going on. No, they need to get'er done in 1 decade, so write your congressman or whoever it is that makes this kind of thing happen.

So does anyone think the property across from BLVD place will get the mixed-used treatment? I could see them putting lipstick on that pig for now, and then in a few years, maybe 2012-13, when the market is ready for more absorption, razing the place and building another BLVD Place/Oaks District type project. With the way Uptown is going, I can't see that other strip center, the one with Container Store, surviving another 10 years either. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking.

[woolie]

If downtown land were not scarce, it'd be used for agricultural purposes...or not at all.

As far as I'm concerned, surface parking is one inch shy of "not at all."

[ricco67]

I can't wait until 2050 to see those downtown blocks get filled up, I'll be senile by then.....

I don't know if "by then" is relative...but there are a number of senile people here already.

3-5 decades doesn't seem like it would be unrealistic.

[Ethanra]

Had a customer today that is high up with this project and they have been involved with the hotel industry for his entire career. He would not give much detail about the project but he did confirm the project is moving at a good pace. They said the ritz is going to one of the most impressive hotels they have been involved with. I then asked about it being 66 stories and he said "he doesn't know about that" in a a sarcastic voice. I assume that 66 stories is not going to happen and never was.....

[musicman]

This whole story reeks. Unless there's more to it than what's being reported, the city looks flimsy in this deal.

Council passed the ordinance last yr that required developers to put in park space on their projects. You would think Wulfe would have to do that as well.

[TheNiche]

Council passed the ordinance last yr that required developers to put in park space on their projects. You would think Wulfe would have to do that as well.

Not quite accurate. Either they develop parks themselves or they pay an $800 per unit impact fee on any residential component. In urban areas, no developer would dare develop the required amount of park land, themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, surface parking is one inch shy of "not at all."

Your state of concern might be different if you had money in the real estate game.

Besides, parking is a category of land use, and it is one that facilitates the vitality and growth of downtown. This is why people are so willing to pay outrageous daily parking rates; they value the use of that space. To remove any space from use entirely would be a tremendously bad idea. It is not an "inch shy" but a mile from "not at all."

Edited March 12, 2008 by TheNiche

[musicman]

Not quite accurate. Either they develop parks themselves or they pay an $800 per unit impact fee on any residential component.

yep. i would think wulfe would develop the remaining land so it is nice and the pocket park wouldn't be necessary.

[Pumapayam]

Before and After photos from the March Uptown Update.

[lockmat]

Before and After photos from the March Uptown Update.

Do you have a link for that? Pics dont show up for me at work.

[Pumapayam]

Do you have a link for that? Pics dont show up for me at work.

Nope, it was a newsletter I got in my inbox.

I signed up for the Uptown Update from the Uptown Houston website.

They are supposed to also post them here

http://www.uptown-houston.com/info/uptownNews.html

But they are always months behind.

The photos are of the progress, not much to see right now, just thought I'd post them.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Pumapayam

[woolie]

Your state of concern might be different if you had money in the real estate game.

Surface parking = visual torture. I don't mind garages, the rates aren't terrible even in the super-expensive TMC (although I chose to just bike or take the train.) But I want to hulk smash every surface lot in the city. I don't care about any simplistic "cost=utility" argument, they're a terrible visual blight and devalue the entire neighborhood in my eyes. What about the utility and value in having a neighborhood that doesn't feel like a barren wasteland. Anyway, we could go back and forth on this forever, you know where I stand. EOM.

However, I will grant that some people never step foot outside without their cars. Probably even most people on this forum have never walked on a city sidewalk or through a park as a means of transit. Perhaps when your only perception of the city is colored by the car's window, you don't even notice the lots in the first place. But to live your entire life this way is a greatly diminished experience.

Edited March 20, 2008 by woolie

[LTAWACS]

Surface parking = visual torture. I don't mind garages, the rates aren't terrible even in the super-expensive TMC (although I chose to just bike or take the train.) But I want to hulk smash every surface lot in the city. I don't care about any simplistic "cost=utility" argument, they're a terrible visual blight and devalue the entire neighborhood in my eyes. What about the utility and value in having a neighborhood that doesn't feel like a barren wasteland. Anyway, we could go back and forth on this forever, you know where I stand. EOM.

However, I will grant that some people never step foot outside without their cars. Probably even most people on this forum have never walked on a city sidewalk or through a park as a means of transit. Perhaps when your only perception of the city is colored by the car's window, you don't even notice the lots in the first place. But to live your entire life this way is a greatly diminished experience.

I believe you are correct in that there are many who have never walked on city sidewalks before. I too think that sort of thing is what diminishes quality of life for many. That's why I decided to take the blue pill. However, for sanity's sake, TheNiche is correct.

[ProHouston]

Here is a new pic from this morning. You can see that most of the foundation was laid earlier this week.

[Highway6]

Do we have a thread on the W hotel somewhere? Seems I've heard it mentioned in conjunction with Blvd Place at one point.

Dows it have it's own thread. I tried searching for it, but the Haif search parameters don't allow words under 3 letters thus eliminating 'W'.

[lockmat]

Do we have a thread on the W hotel somewhere? Seems I've heard it mentioned in conjunction with Blvd Place at one point.

Dows it have it's own thread. I tried searching for it, but the Haif search parameters don't allow words under 3 letters thus eliminating 'W'.

not sure, but I always use google advanced search. just search within HAIF. works well

Edited March 27, 2008 by lockmat

[H-Town Man]

Surface parking = visual torture. I don't mind garages, the rates aren't terrible even in the super-expensive TMC (although I chose to just bike or take the train.) But I want to hulk smash every surface lot in the city. I don't care about any simplistic "cost=utility" argument, they're a terrible visual blight and devalue the entire neighborhood in my eyes. What about the utility and value in having a neighborhood that doesn't feel like a barren wasteland. Anyway, we could go back and forth on this forever, you know where I stand. EOM.

However, I will grant that some people never step foot outside without their cars. Probably even most people on this forum have never walked on a city sidewalk or through a park as a means of transit. Perhaps when your only perception of the city is colored by the car's window, you don't even notice the lots in the first place. But to live your entire life this way is a greatly diminished experience.

Why do you live in Houston?

[woolie]

Why do you live in Houston?

Texas Medical Center

[Highway6]

Do we have a thread on the W hotel somewhere? Seems I've heard it mentioned in conjunction with Blvd Place at one point.

Dows it have it's own thread. I tried searching for it, but the Haif search parameters don't allow words under 3 letters thus eliminating 'W'.

Found what I was looking for.

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...mp;#entry236925

I could have swore when I passed by it today (Westheimer@Yorktown) that the banner mentioned the "aloft" concept was brought to you by W Hotels.

Perhaps I was mistaken.

[Gary]

Texas Medical Center

"Texas medical Center" what? Are employed there, or simply think it's the only viable place in Houston worth setting foot?

Personally, I think your overly exagerating. Houston is a great city that is making strides to accomplish a more urban environment, give it some time. things aren't going to do a 180 overnight.

[MyEvilTwin]

Found what I was looking for.

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...mp;#entry236925

I could have swore when I passed by it today (Westheimer@Yorktown) that the banner mentioned the "aloft" concept was brought to you by W Hotels.

Perhaps I was mistaken.

Actually I think this might be what you're looking for: http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...;hl=round+round.

The aloft thread that you linked is about an officially announced development of a hotel set to open in March 2009 at 5433 Westheimer. The W thread is a bit more speculative, suggesting there might be a W hotel coming to the same area, presumably the River Oaks District (4444 Westheimer, where Westcreek Apts. is now). It ultimately spawned this thread (http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...r+oaks+district.), with updated renderings, etc.

W is a Starwood Hotel brand, and aloft is a newer Starwood brand that they refer to as "A Vision of W Hotels." Why it's affiliated that way with W and not with Sheraton or Westin or the other Starwood brands I can't say, but I think W and aloft are both supposed to be the trendier side of Starwood so maybe they're paired up for that reason. I believe W is generally quite a bit more upscale than aloft, though. (I'm sure I'm butchering their brand positioning -- Starwood, please forgive me!)

[KinkaidAlum]

Here is a new pic from this morning. You can see that most of the foundation was laid earlier this week.

Man, I can't stop looking at that TERRIBLE base/garage for the Cosmopolitan. That is FUGLY.

I had high hopes for the Cosmo. I am left saying "blah."

[jc281]

Man, I can't stop looking at that TERRIBLE base/garage for the Cosmopolitan. That is FUGLY.

I had high hopes for the Cosmo. I am left saying "blah."

I really dont get it either. I keep thinking they'll somehow remove it when move-ins start.

Shame too, iirc the Titan renderings have a similar deal.

[Gary]

Man, I can't stop looking at that TERRIBLE base/garage for the Cosmopolitan. That is FUGLY.

I had high hopes for the Cosmo. I am left saying "blah."

It could be my eyes, but in the pic it looks like there is a small piece of curtain wall at the top right of the garage. Hopefully they're replacing that nasty beige with a facade that matches the rest of the building.

Edit: I'm obviously seeing things. Just looked at the renderings and sure enough that facade is a keeper. It looks like they're going to put some climbing vines in, so hopefully once that matures it will look better. Also it looks like they went away from the original color which was more of a brown.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Gary

[Highway6]

Edit: I'm obviously seeing things. Just looked at the renderings and sure enough that facade is a keeper. It looks like they're going to put some climbing vines in, so hopefully once that matures it will look better. Also it looks like they went away from the original color which was more of a brown.

Originally vines were planned. Now they aren't.

I think the Uptown district was a little miffed at the end result too, but not enough to force the developer into carrying through with those plans. I believe what you see is finished due to the wishes of the developer.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I never noticed it before since I've only really seen the building in person from the ground level as I'm looking upwards at the top half, but now that it's been pointed out, the garage's design really detracts from the building. I mean REALLY detracts from it.

Edited March 28, 2008 by The Great Hizzy!

[swtsig]

i live and work right next door to the cosmo and can honestly say that everyone around here is miffed that that is the end design for the garage.... i mean everyone. who on earth greenlit that one? it is horrendous. for the longest time i just assumed it was a temporary facade, but as they got closer and closer to finishing the exterior it became apparent that this is indeed the final design... all i can say is wow.

vines would be a HUGE relief compared to what it looks like now.... somebody call randall davis and tell him he better not leave it the way it is; some people have to look at this thing every-freakin-day.

i do like the continuity of the building itself in regards to four oaks place and the four leaf towers, though.

Edited March 28, 2008 by swtsig

[musicman]

i live and work right next door to the cosmo and can honestly say that everyone around here is miffed that that is the end design for the garage.... i mean everyone.

i'm thinking a spray paint artist could have a field day.

[KinkaidAlum]

It cheapens the entire building and the entire Four Oaks project, which is one of the nicest suburban office complexes in town. Knowing that another one will rise across the street is a scary thought to.

Considering the prices Randall is charging, I would like to think sales in the Titan might be harder to come by when the buyers can see the "quality" of design across the street.

I'd also imagine that the flippers who bought early in the Cosmo aren't too thrilled to see the vines and fountain wall missing!

[Trae]

i live and work right next door to the cosmo and can honestly say that everyone around here is miffed that that is the end design for the garage.... i mean everyone. who on earth greenlit that one? it is horrendous. for the longest time i just assumed it was a temporary facade, but as they got closer and closer to finishing the exterior it became apparent that this is indeed the final design... all i can say is wow.

vines would be a HUGE relief compared to what it looks like now.... somebody call randall davis and tell him he better not leave it the way it is; some people have to look at this thing every-freakin-day.

i do like the continuity of the building itself in regards to four oaks place and the four leaf towers, though.

With has rich as the guy is, he couldn't paint the garage to match the building?

[Highway6]

who on earth greenlit that one? it is horrendous. for the longest time i just assumed it was a temporary facade, but as they got closer and closer to finishing the exterior it became apparent that this is indeed the final design... all i can say is wow.

The owner-developer did. If they are pre-selling the wazzoo out of the units, why still spend money on vines. Unless an ugly garage becomes an issue as to why units are no longer being purchased, then they don't care what their neighbors think.

They don't answer to their neighbors, uptown district, or haifers... so we should probably get over it.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Highway6