Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Niche, if you don't like the idea of mixed-use development, that is fine. You are wrong about it being a 21st century fad - it has actually been around ever since people started building dense cities, and its continuing importance in the age of suburban development has been understood at least since Jane Jacobs wrote her book ca. 1960. And if you think that all that is important in urban development is density, "pure and simple," then enjoy your pleasant urban stroll down Milam St. I will continue to hope for something better.

You misunderstand the practical justification for mixed-use. Historically, the vast majority of people had only their feet to move them. Horses only were available to a wealthy few within cities. As a result, verticality and mixed-use (essentially an effort to cram as much as possible onto every square inch of land) were a practical necessity among cities, not merely a style. That is a very critical difference, and I cite for you places like The Woodlands and Sugar Land Town Squares as places that have absolutely no justification from the realm of necessity. They are built because consumer tastes demand it (for the time being).

I don't pretend to understand why, but this is just part of a larger neo-traditional movement that gains intensity from time to time. For some reason, many people are into resuscitated styles that hearken back to a bygone eras and far away places. In the 70's and 80's, faux-English and faux-Federal were the big things. Now we have faux-Mediterranian, faux-French, faux-Victorian, and faux-'urban'. These things do not appeal to me. They are repetitive, lack creativity, and are indicative of the greater problem in society: faux-people.

Btw, I like most of Milam Street. It is authentic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Crane going up this weekend according to the FAA filing.  

Well since these models have been revealed, I guess I can probably post the renderings...

Posted Images

I don't know what the names of the projects are, but it is common knowledge that many mixed-use developments have been done in both those cities. Sarnoff even mentioned in that recent article that such projects were more common in those places. If you think that Houston with its two mixed-use projects under construction downtown and its one mixed-use apartment complex in Midtown is not dead last among major American cities in this category, you can go on believing that, but I would like to clear up that misconception if I can. Delusion will not make Houston a better city.

Calm down man. I asked for examples because I just don't know, and without seeing examples I'm not willing to accept "common knowledge" because "common knowledge" is very often wrong. (For example, it is "common knowledge" that Houston has the dirtiest air, the fattest people and the worst traffic in America... None of those are true.)

I realize Ms. Sarnoff mentioned that in the recent article. That was in fact the genesis of my inquiry. But remember, Ms. Sarnoff is the same "reporter" who told us that with the construction of 2727 Kirby, Houston was at long last beginning to catch up with Dallas and Atlanta with high-rise condominiums, apparently oblivious to the dozens of high-rises that have been scattered around central Houston for decades. Sorry, but I need a more reliable source than Sarnoff.

Is anybody else here familiar enough with Dallas or Atlanta (or Austin or Phoenix, two other cities that, according to Sarnoff are ahead of Houston) to be able to throw out some examples of the mixed-use projects in those cities?

Edited by Houston19514
Link to post
Share on other sites
Calm down man. I asked for examples because I just don't know, and without seeing examples I'm not willing to accept "common knowledge" because "common knowledge" is very often wrong. (For example, it is "common knowledge" that Houston has the dirtiest air, the fattest people and the worst traffic in America... None of those are true.)

I realize Ms. Sarnoff mentioned that in the recent article. That was in fact the genesis of my inquiry. But remember, Ms. Sarnoff is the same "reporter" who told us that with the construction of 2727 Kirby, Houston was at long last beginning to catch up with Dallas and Atlanta with high-rise condominiums, apparently oblivious to the dozens of high-rises that have been scattered around central Houston for decades. Sorry, but I need a more reliable source than Sarnoff.

Is anybody else here familiar enough with Dallas or Atlanta (or Austin or Phoenix, two other cities that, according to Sarnoff are ahead of Houston) to be able to throw out some examples of the mixed-use projects in those cities?

I really can't think of much in Atlanta that is mixed use ??? Atlanta seems like it has a lot of condo-buildings. i will tell you an odd thing that i noticed about atlanta. it seemed to have a lot of sex-toys-shops everywhere in the buck-head area and they just kind of blended in...even close to nice neighborhoods.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calm down man. I asked for examples because I just don't know, and without seeing examples I'm not willing to accept "common knowledge" because "common knowledge" is very often wrong. (For example, it is "common knowledge" that Houston has the dirtiest air, the fattest people and the worst traffic in America... None of those are true.)

I realize Ms. Sarnoff mentioned that in the recent article. That was in fact the genesis of my inquiry. But remember, Ms. Sarnoff is the same "reporter" who told us that with the construction of 2727 Kirby, Houston was at long last beginning to catch up with Dallas and Atlanta with high-rise condominiums, apparently oblivious to the dozens of high-rises that have been scattered around central Houston for decades. Sorry, but I need a more reliable source than Sarnoff.

Is anybody else here familiar enough with Dallas or Atlanta (or Austin or Phoenix, two other cities that, according to Sarnoff are ahead of Houston) to be able to throw out some examples of the mixed-use projects in those cities?

Dallas seems to have more mixed use- Victory and West Village are examples of fiarly large projects in the city, along with Mockingbird and their Galleria. Once you get out to the suburbs Southlake has an extensive town square, Legacy Town Center, Richardson is building one near transit, Frisco near the minor league ball park. This is just off the top of my head.

Austin gets mixed use because they want it, and with their tight zoning and strong neighborhood groups they can better dictate development.

Both Dallas and Atlanta seem to have a much more vibrant hirise condo market, although both are in danger of being overbuilt. Scottsdale (suburban Phoenix) has a rediculous amount of new or anounced condos, but Phoenix isn't really any more urban of a city than Houston.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You misunderstand the practical justification for mixed-use. Historically, the vast majority of people had only their feet to move them. Horses only were available to a wealthy few within cities. As a result, verticality and mixed-use (essentially an effort to cram as much as possible onto every square inch of land) were a practical necessity among cities, not merely a style. That is a very critical difference, and I cite for you places like The Woodlands and Sugar Land Town Squares as places that have absolutely no justification from the realm of necessity. They are built because consumer tastes demand it (for the time being).

I don't pretend to understand why, but this is just part of a larger neo-traditional movement that gains intensity from time to time. For some reason, many people are into resuscitated styles that hearken back to a bygone eras and far away places. In the 70's and 80's, faux-English and faux-Federal were the big things. Now we have faux-Mediterranian, faux-French, faux-Victorian, and faux-'urban'. These things do not appeal to me. They are repetitive, lack creativity, and are indicative of the greater problem in society: faux-people.

Btw, I like most of Milam Street. It is authentic.

Mixed-use is not a style the way Mediterranean, French, and Victorian are. It's a pattern of development that clusters multiple uses in the same place to ensure a constant stream of human traffic and, thus, vibrancy and sense of place. What I don't like about Milam St. is that there are a bunch of austere office towers and little else (I'm thinking mainly south of Texas Ave.), so that what you end up with is a dead environment. In fact, most of downtown Houston is like this (except for the historic district, which was built when mixed-use was still a "necessity").

You said that all you cared about as far as urbanism goes is density, "pure and simple." Well downtown Houston is plenty dense, but it does not, for the most part, offer a lively environment (again, the historic district is the exception). The return of mixed-use is an attempt to recognize what made the urban environments of the past "tick" the way they did, and to undo the deadening effect of all the single-use developments of the 60's and 70's.

If you don't like it, fine. Enjoy Milam St. I frankly don't know why we are having this conversation. I started out by saying that I can understand why an urbanist in Houston would be pessimistic, given past defeats of mixed-use development. If you don't like mixed-use development and don't understand why other people do, then there are plenty of other conversations on this forum for you to stick your head into. Insinuating that people like myself who do like it are "faux-people" is not constructive in any way, and will only add to the reputation you have earned for yourself on this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize Ms. Sarnoff mentioned that in the recent article. That was in fact the genesis of my inquiry. But remember, Ms. Sarnoff is the same "reporter" who told us that with the construction of 2727 Kirby, Houston was at long last beginning to catch up with Dallas and Atlanta with high-rise condominiums, apparently oblivious to the dozens of high-rises that have been scattered around central Houston for decades. Sorry, but I need a more reliable source than Sarnoff.

I can't speak for her but is it possible she meant high-rise condominium construction, which Houston has appeared to be a step behind in the general recent years compared to some of it's comparable counterparts? I'm sure she is aware of the highrise condo buildings in Houston.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Calm down man. I asked for examples because I just don't know, and without seeing examples I'm not willing to accept "common knowledge" because "common knowledge" is very often wrong. (For example, it is "common knowledge" that Houston has the dirtiest air, the fattest people and the worst traffic in America... None of those are true.)

I realize Ms. Sarnoff mentioned that in the recent article. That was in fact the genesis of my inquiry. But remember, Ms. Sarnoff is the same "reporter" who told us that with the construction of 2727 Kirby, Houston was at long last beginning to catch up with Dallas and Atlanta with high-rise condominiums, apparently oblivious to the dozens of high-rises that have been scattered around central Houston for decades. Sorry, but I need a more reliable source than Sarnoff.

Is anybody else here familiar enough with Dallas or Atlanta (or Austin or Phoenix, two other cities that, according to Sarnoff are ahead of Houston) to be able to throw out some examples of the mixed-use projects in those cities?

Sorry for the friction, Houston 19514. To tell you the truth, most of the mixed-use I have seen in Dallas was just from spending time there. There is a whole urbanized area north of their downtown that reminds me almost of Chicago. I don't know the name of the developments though, except for Victory, Mockingbird Station, and the West End district.

As far as Atlanta, my experience comes mainly from seeing pictures on forums like this of things that were being built there. They looked very cutting edge, overall; very in-synch with urbanist principles. I also remember that when we had the big furor on here of the suburban CVS that was being built in Midtown right next to the urban Post apartment complex, people talked about an urban CVS store that had been developed in Atlanta. The implication was that CVS could build urban if it wanted to, it just didn't make sense to do so in Houston. Things like this help create the sense that we are behind in this trend.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't speak for her but is it possible she meant high-rise condominium construction, which Houston has appeared to be a step behind in the general recent years compared to some of it's comparable counterparts? I'm sure she is aware of the highrise condo buildings in Houston.

Well, for the record, here are her exact words: "While luxury high-rise condominiums are commonplace in big cities - where land is scarce, forcing developers to build up instead of out - they've been slow to develop in Houston, where most folks prefer single-family homes." Quoted from her June 19, 2005 "report" about 2727 Kirby.

Does that sound like someone who is aware of the dozens of high-rise condominium buildings that have existed in Houston for decades? If she is aware, she is apparently intent on casting a negative light on Houston (which does seem to be the case of most Chronicle reporters). Not sure which is worse, ignorance (of that level) or dishonesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"While luxury high-rise condominiums are commonplace in big cities - where land is scarce, forcing developers to build up instead of out - they've been slow to develop in Houston, where most folks prefer single-family homes." Quoted from her June 19, 2005 "report" about 2727 Kirby.

This is a true statement.

And what are these "dozens" of condominions that have been in houston for decades?

Edited by guess
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for the record, here are her exact words: "While luxury high-rise condominiums are commonplace in big cities - where land is scarce, forcing developers to build up instead of out - they've been slow to develop in Houston, where most folks prefer single-family homes." Quoted from her June 19, 2005 "report" about 2727 Kirby.

Does that sound like someone who is aware of the dozens of high-rise condominium buildings that have existed in Houston for decades? If she is aware, she is apparently intent on casting a negative light on Houston (which does seem to be the case of most Chronicle reporters). Not sure which is worse, ignorance (of that level) or dishonesty.

Except that she is right.

There were certainly several condo towers built in the '70s and early '80s, but there were almost no high-rise condominiums built in Houston from the mid '80s to the late '90s. Since then there have been but a handful; Borlenghi had done well, but very few others (Randall with his midrises, of course). When you look at the number of townhomes built in the Inner Loop and Galleria during the past decade, and compare that to the number of high-rise condos, its hard to say that this is a high-rise city. How many upscale condo projects have been anounced and cancelled? Obviously some of this happens in every city, but Houston has seen far less high-rise condo construction in the past decade than Atlanta or Dallas. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change matters. Some of the anounced deals will come to fruition, but its not as if we are the only city with condos on the drawing board.

It is easy to pick on Nancy or the Chronicle, and obviously they don't know everything that is in the pipeline because developers don't want the public to know about their projects until they are ready. But Nancy is more knowledgable about what is going on in the Houston real estate market than just about any reporter I have known over the past decade. She is a solid journalist, trustworthy to not burn a source, competent and discreet. And unlike some online real estate sites, her articles are clearly written and not utter fabrications.

Edited by buildingunbuildingrebuilding
Link to post
Share on other sites

First, please accept my apology for any direct and personal insult that you took from my faux-people comments. They were not directed at you, but at a very large portion of American society, certainly in excess of 90% of the people IMO. The discussion of architectural cliches and neotraditional style is just one small facet of an issue that is pervasive in American society. It is a rule-bound mentality. It is a perspective that acknowledges option A, option B, and option C, but does not acknowledge an optimal combination, much less a mix of combinations. It is 'the box'. I become trapped in it from time to time, myself, and it is the root of great personal frustration.

Mixed-use is not a style the way Mediterranean, French, and Victorian are. It's a pattern of development that clusters multiple uses in the same place to ensure a constant stream of human traffic and, thus, vibrancy and sense of place.

"Sense of place" is merely a construct that has been pushed for decades as a reaction to rapid post-war development of similar-looking communities throughout the United States. Some architectural elitists looked back at urban areas, which had accreted slowly over many decades or even centuries, saw an enviable diversity of design and demographics within close proximity, and compared them in disgust to everything built from the 50's onward. After all, nobody values what is built en masse in the present day. But after 50 years, even the cookie-cutter affordable housing such as exists in Bellaire, Oak Forest, Glenbrook Valley, etc. starts to look good again. Anyhow, the reaction against sameness gained momentum and become mainstream, but there was a problem: once an idea becomes mainstream, and there are a few good examples in place, developers look at what has been built and try to reproduce it dozens of times. There may be a few distinguishing characteristics and ornamentation (and that would be true even of differences between master planned communities), but essentially it is trading out one form of sameness for another.

Neither form of sameness appeals to me for that reason. It is unoriginal. The concept of a "sense of place" that many of its proponents would like to create ubiquitously is self-defeating because the very same place exists a dozen times over in your city and the next.

What I don't like about Milam St. is that there are a bunch of austere office towers and little else (I'm thinking mainly south of Texas Ave.), so that what you end up with is a dead environment. In fact, most of downtown Houston is like this (except for the historic district, which was built when mixed-use was still a "necessity").

You said that all you cared about as far as urbanism goes is density, "pure and simple." Well downtown Houston is plenty dense, but it does not, for the most part, offer a lively environment (again, the historic district is the exception). The return of mixed-use is an attempt to recognize what made the urban environments of the past "tick" the way they did, and to undo the deadening effect of all the single-use developments of the 60's and 70's.

If you don't like it, fine. Enjoy Milam St.

I certainly shall. Milam Street (and Louisiana and Smith) are absolutely awe-inspiring. In fact, I drove through there via Lamar on Sunday with two associates of mine, and all three of us were leaning every which way trying to capture the best views of the highrises. Our eyes were not directed the street not on account of that people weren't there (in fact, its amazing we didn't run over someone), but because people weren't interesting. I see people every day...but Houston's downtown is unique in its austerity and commanding presence. It is architecture and scale that captivates the mind. The skyine is unique. It is authentic. It is the very epitome of place. And you want vibrancy? Conceptualize the human energy contained within that skyline. Imagine the productive force! The sheer aggregate power... Sends shivers down my spine.

I then turn right on W. Gray and drive through Post Midtown on a Sunday morning. People are out eating lunch, filling the sidewalk cafes to capacity. I yawn. They are merely people, like myself. They eat, like myself. They will go home and ****, like myself. There is no more excitement, awe, or vitality in a street full of people than there is in a cow pasture.

What can those people do other than eat and ****? What makes them unique? What do they think? What do they do? How did they change the world today? The answers are written in the sky and tethered by steel and glass to Milam Street.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First, please accept my apology for any direct and personal insult that you took from my faux-people comments. They were not directed at you, but at a very large portion of American society, certainly in excess of 90% of the people IMO. The discussion of architectural cliches and neotraditional style is just one small facet of an issue that is pervasive in American society. It is a rule-bound mentality. It is a perspective that acknowledges option A, option B, and option C, but does not acknowledge an optimal combination, much less a mix of combinations. It is 'the box'. I become trapped in it from time to time, myself, and it is the root of great personal frustration.

"Sense of place" is merely a construct that has been pushed for decades as a reaction to rapid post-war development of similar-looking communities throughout the United States. Some architectural elitists looked back at urban areas, which had accreted slowly over many decades or even centuries, saw an enviable diversity of design and demographics within close proximity, and compared them in disgust to everything built from the 50's onward. After all, nobody values what is built en masse in the present day. But after 50 years, even the cookie-cutter affordable housing such as exists in Bellaire, Oak Forest, Glenbrook Valley, etc. starts to look good again. Anyhow, the reaction against sameness gained momentum and become mainstream, but there was a problem: once an idea becomes mainstream, and there are a few good examples in place, developers look at what has been built and try to reproduce it dozens of times. There may be a few distinguishing characteristics and ornamentation (and that would be true even of differences between master planned communities), but essentially it is trading out one form of sameness for another.

Neither form of sameness appeals to me for that reason. It is unoriginal. The concept of a "sense of place" that many of its proponents would like to create ubiquitously is self-defeating because the very same place exists a dozen times over in your city and the next.

You keep imputing things to me that are only slightly related to what I'm talking about. Just because I like areas with a sense of place, and think that urbanism helps this, doesn't mean that I hate all the cookie-cutter neighborhoods, etc.

I certainly shall. Milam Street (and Louisiana and Smith) are absolutely awe-inspiring. In fact, I drove through there via Lamar on Sunday with two associates of mine, and all three of us were leaning every which way trying to capture the best views of the highrises. Our eyes were not directed the street not on account of that people weren't there (in fact, its amazing we didn't run over someone), but because people weren't interesting. I see people every day...but Houston's downtown is unique in its austerity and commanding presence. It is architecture and scale that captivates the mind. The skyine is unique. It is authentic. It is the very epitome of place. And you want vibrancy? Conceptualize the human energy contained within that skyline. Imagine the productive force! The sheer aggregate power... Sends shivers down my spine.

I then turn right on W. Gray and drive through Post Midtown on a Sunday morning. People are out eating lunch, filling the sidewalk cafes to capacity. I yawn. They are merely people, like myself. They eat, like myself. They will go home and ****, like myself. There is no more excitement, awe, or vitality in a street full of people than there is in a cow pasture.

What can those people do other than eat and ****? What makes them unique? What do they think? What do they do? How did they change the world today? The answers are written in the sky and tethered by steel and glass to Milam Street.

I think, Niche, that part of the difference in our outlooks is that you drove through those places. Houston is an absolutely wonderful city for someone who never wants to leave the car. Downtown really does look dramatic through those windows, and I have often peered up at those buildings when driving through there myself.

But an urbanist - and I think I speak for 99.9% of those who call themselves urbanists - an urbanist does not just want a place that looks neat from the car. An urbanist wants to be able to walk through a busy environment of other humans who are out walking and doing things. There is a certain excitement that comes from this, that you can feel in cities like New York and Chicago, and occasionally, certain parts of downtown Houston. People like us enjoy being around those other humans that you find so boring. We think that a street full of people is more exciting than a cow pasture.

Now Niche, it may be that YOU ARE NOT AN URBANIST. Or maybe you consider yourself an "urbanist," but by a different definition of the word. Fine. You are welcome to your view. But this whole conversation got started when I said that I could see why an urbanist would be pessimistic about development in Houston. And ever since then you have been trying to tell me (without success) why it's wrong or foolish or trendy or false to be an urbanist. Can we just agree to disagree, and go our separate ways?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we just agree to disagree, and go our separate ways?

Sure. We're way off on a tangent anyway...but actually, I should thank you because your responses helped me to articulate something that I've been needing to say for a long time. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, it is good to have been inspired by the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First, please accept my apology for any direct and personal insult that you took from my faux-people comments. They were not directed at you, but at a very large portion of American society, certainly in excess of 90% of the people IMO. The discussion of architectural cliches and neotraditional style is just one small facet of an issue that is pervasive in American society. It is a rule-bound mentality. It is a perspective that acknowledges option A, option B, and option C, but does not acknowledge an optimal combination, much less a mix of combinations. It is 'the box'. I become trapped in it from time to time, myself, and it is the root of great personal frustration.

"Sense of place" is merely a construct that has been pushed for decades as a reaction to rapid post-war development of similar-looking communities throughout the United States. Some architectural elitists looked back at urban areas, which had accreted slowly over many decades or even centuries, saw an enviable diversity of design and demographics within close proximity, and compared them in disgust to everything built from the 50's onward. After all, nobody values what is built en masse in the present day. But after 50 years, even the cookie-cutter affordable housing such as exists in Bellaire, Oak Forest, Glenbrook Valley, etc. starts to look good again. Anyhow, the reaction against sameness gained momentum and become mainstream, but there was a problem: once an idea becomes mainstream, and there are a few good examples in place, developers look at what has been built and try to reproduce it dozens of times. There may be a few distinguishing characteristics and ornamentation (and that would be true even of differences between master planned communities), but essentially it is trading out one form of sameness for another.

Neither form of sameness appeals to me for that reason. It is unoriginal. The concept of a "sense of place" that many of its proponents would like to create ubiquitously is self-defeating because the very same place exists a dozen times over in your city and the next.

I certainly shall. Milam Street (and Louisiana and Smith) are absolutely awe-inspiring. In fact, I drove through there via Lamar on Sunday with two associates of mine, and all three of us were leaning every which way trying to capture the best views of the highrises. Our eyes were not directed the street not on account of that people weren't there (in fact, its amazing we didn't run over someone), but because people weren't interesting. I see people every day...but Houston's downtown is unique in its austerity and commanding presence. It is architecture and scale that captivates the mind. The skyine is unique. It is authentic. It is the very epitome of place. And you want vibrancy? Conceptualize the human energy contained within that skyline. Imagine the productive force! The sheer aggregate power... Sends shivers down my spine.

I then turn right on W. Gray and drive through Post Midtown on a Sunday morning. People are out eating lunch, filling the sidewalk cafes to capacity. I yawn. They are merely people, like myself. They eat, like myself. They will go home and ****, like myself. There is no more excitement, awe, or vitality in a street full of people than there is in a cow pasture.

What can those people do other than eat and ****? What makes them unique? What do they think? What do they do? How did they change the world today? The answers are written in the sky and tethered by steel and glass to Milam Street.

wow, niche. have those big thoughts often? i'm thinking "ode to milam street"? i enjoy your posts. keep 'em coming.

i've never conceptualized the human capital represented in the CBD. however, when i lose myself staring at wells fargo or bank of america and others, i'm immediately overwhelmed with the human capacity that designed and built these monuments. i can't get my brain around the weight and stresses, concrete, steel, stone, glass, mechanics and design required to bring one of these amazing structures to fruition. i cannot imagine the organization necessary to simultaneously bring together the plethora of various talents required to successfully complete a 50 story hi-rise. i'd be happy to spend the rest of my life learning about these buildings. i'm in awe of the architects and engineers and developers who have it figured out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that she is right.

There were certainly several condo towers built in the '70s and early '80s, but there were almost no high-rise condominiums built in Houston from the mid '80s to the late '90s. Since then there have been but a handful; Borlenghi had done well, but very few others (Randall with his midrises, of course). When you look at the number of townhomes built in the Inner Loop and Galleria during the past decade, and compare that to the number of high-rise condos, its hard to say that this is a high-rise city. How many upscale condo projects have been anounced and cancelled? Obviously some of this happens in every city, but Houston has seen far less high-rise condo construction in the past decade than Atlanta or Dallas. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change matters. Some of the anounced deals will come to fruition, but its not as if we are the only city with condos on the drawing board.

It is easy to pick on Nancy or the Chronicle, and obviously they don't know everything that is in the pipeline because developers don't want the public to know about their projects until they are ready. But Nancy is more knowledgable about what is going on in the Houston real estate market than just about any reporter I have known over the past decade. She is a solid journalist, trustworthy to not burn a source, competent and discreet. And unlike some online real estate sites, her articles are clearly written and not utter fabrications.

Forget about highrise condo development from the 1980s to the late 1990s, can you name for me more than a handful of highrises (offices, condos, hotels, etc..) that were built during that time frame?

The City of Houston was in a MAJOR bust cycle. Almost NOTHING was built of any magnitude during that time outside of a few med center projects.

Additionally, while it is true that Atlanta has had more condo/apartment towers rise over the last few years, the same cannot be said of Dallas with any degree of certainty. In fact, outside of NYC, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, and San Diego, I am not sure what other city has had more highrise residential growth than Houston. Here's a list...

501 foot 37 floor One Park Place under construction

405 foot 30 floor 2727 Kirby (crane on site)

400 foot 30 floor Mercer (2003)

360 foot 33 floor Royalton at River Oaks (2003)

359 foot 33 floor 1200 Post Oak (2003)

358 foot 29 floor Mosaic under construction

351 foot 31 floor Dominion (2004)

334 foot 30 floor The Mark (2001)

330 foot 30 floor Montebello (2004)

315 foot 24 floor Cosmopolitan under construction

308 foot 27 floor Villa d'Este (2000)

248 foot 20 floor Museum Tower (2002)

245 foot 21 floor Seven Riverway (2007)

195 foot 17 floor The Robinhood (2003)

191 foot 13 floor The Rise (2000)

This doesn't even begin to mention the conversions (Four Seasons, Commerce Towers, Post Rice Lofts, Humble Tower) or new midrise (Empire, Lofts on Post Oak, Manhattan, 1419 Montrose, Briarglen) or midrise conversion (Metropole, St Germaine, Capitol, Keystone, Herrin, Bayou, Hermann, etc...)

There are also many projects in the pipeline like the second Mercer, the second Mosaic, the twin 35 story Whiteco towers, the Westin Memorial City Residences, the BLVD Place (some 800 units), Landcos plans for the downtown park (up to two condo towers), Turnberry's proposal, another highrise from Hanover, Regent Square, the Oaks District, High Street, the apartments at Kirby/Westheimer, the Sonoma, etc...

Link to post
Share on other sites
The City of Houston was in a MAJOR bust cycle. Almost NOTHING was built of any magnitude during that time outside of a few med center projects.

That's not accurate. There were more jobs added to the Houston area in both 1990 and 1998 than there were in 2006. Also, up until at least 2005, the most recent data from the Census, 1998 was the best year for multifamily permitting since 1983...since then the ratio of single-family permits to multifamily permits has increased dramatically. We also went bust in 2002 and 2003, but oddly enough, that's when the second-generation residential highrise trend caught on.

Strange but true...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forget about highrise condo development from the 1980s to the late 1990s, can you name for me more than a handful of highrises (offices, condos, hotels, etc..) that were built during that time frame?

The City of Houston was in a MAJOR bust cycle. Almost NOTHING was built of any magnitude during that time outside of a few med center projects.

Additionally, while it is true that Atlanta has had more condo/apartment towers rise over the last few years, the same cannot be said of Dallas with any degree of certainty. In fact, outside of NYC, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, and San Diego, I am not sure what other city has had more highrise residential growth than Houston. Here's a list...

501 foot 37 floor One Park Place under construction

405 foot 30 floor 2727 Kirby (crane on site)

400 foot 30 floor Mercer (2003)

360 foot 33 floor Royalton at River Oaks (2003)

359 foot 33 floor 1200 Post Oak (2003)

358 foot 29 floor Mosaic under construction

351 foot 31 floor Dominion (2004)

334 foot 30 floor The Mark (2001)

330 foot 30 floor Montebello (2004)

315 foot 24 floor Cosmopolitan under construction

308 foot 27 floor Villa d'Este (2000)

248 foot 20 floor Museum Tower (2002)

245 foot 21 floor Seven Riverway (2007)

195 foot 17 floor The Robinhood (2003)

191 foot 13 floor The Rise (2000)

Many of these, of course, are rental- One Park Place, Royalton (originally), 1200, Mosaic (???), Dominion, Museum, Riverway, off the top of my head. And the condos have generally struggled- Mercer, Royalton, Mark, Robinhood have all been troubled. Many others never got built. If you think Houston is a great condo market, I wish you luck. But I would have a hard time recommending high-rise condo in Houston to any developer except under ideal circumstances at an irreplacable location. Many a developer has tried and most have failed.

Sure. We're way off on a tangent anyway...but actually, I should thank you because your responses helped me to articulate something that I've been needing to say for a long time. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, it is good to have been inspired by the moment.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone agree with you! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. Whole Foods TWC is constantly packed with breakfast, lunch and dinner patrons in addition to afternoon commuters taking home a quality meal. This could be on a smaller yet similar and profitable scale at the San Felipie/Post Oak location.

The Whole Foods on Westheimer in West Houston as mentioned prev. has been there for

7-10 + years. It seems to be a pretty ordinary flag-ship whole foods from what i can tell. It's not terribly busy and the area is great. The HEB in that area also on westheimer gets considerably more business . I would imagine the same would occur with Central Market getting the most business if there was a whole foods in the same area . i can see a small Whole Foods diving in to that area, but can't see a big one taking the Nestea Plunge. i think it would be a big mistake with Central Market which is a very nice store being in the area already catering to that high-end consumer and clustered in between River Oaks and the Galleria neighborhoods. i think at a S.Felipe/ p.oak location there would be less high end consumers they will have to draw from off in terms of the demograpics. i bet the the incomes are probably higher in the River Oaks area as well. It is probably the river oaks crowd that drove a lot of the biz at whole foods on s. shephard. I also heard Eatzi's was locked out of their space at p.oak/san felipe and that casts a cloud because it was smaller, but the same ? I think that whole foods would do far better positioning itself along 59/ South Rice and trying to catch Bellaire's business because Bellaire desparately needs more grocery stores like these.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Whole Foods on Westheimer in West Houston as mentioned prev. has been there for

7-10 + years. It seems to be a pretty ordinary flag-ship whole foods from what i can tell. It's not terribly busy and the area is great. The HEB in that area also on westheimer gets considerably more business . I would imagine the same would occur with Central Market getting the most business if there was a whole foods in the same area . i can see a small Whole Foods diving in to that area, but can't see a big one taking the Nestea Plunge. i think it would be a big mistake with Central Market which is a very nice store being in the area already catering to that high-end consumer and clustered in between River Oaks and the Galleria neighborhoods. i think at a S.Felipe/ p.oak location there would be less high end consumers they will have to draw from off in terms of the demograpics. i bet the the incomes are probably higher in the River Oaks area as well. It is probably the river oaks crowd that drove a lot of the biz at whole foods on s. shephard. I also heard Eatzi's was locked out of their space at p.oak/san felipe and that casts a cloud because it was smaller, but the same ? I think that whole foods would do far better positioning itself along 59/ South Rice and trying to catch Bellaire's business because Bellaire desparately needs more grocery stores like these.

There needs to be a distinction made between a regular Whole Foods and a flagship Whole Foods.

One is much larger and carries a greater variety of goods than the other; it is also branded differently, commensurate with the difference in scale.

To some extent, the flagship will always compete with its smaller stores, but the idea is to provide a massive grocery store in a highly-accessible location (Post Oak at San Felipe is better than inner Westheimer, btw) that will serve a regional customer base, albeit perhaps on a less regular basis than would a neighborhood grocer. Among grocery stores, the idea is analogous to the difference between Memorial City Mall and the Galleria.

I think that whole foods would do far better positioning itself along 59/ South Rice and trying to catch Bellaire's business because Bellaire desparately needs more grocery stores like these.

The Randall's could stand to be rebranded to a smaller Whole Foods, but it isn't happening anytime soon...and there's really no developable or redevelopable land left in any part of Bellaire that would be both desirable and large enough to accomodate a new grocery store.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a massive grocery store in a highly-accessible location (Post Oak at San Felipe is better than inner Westheimer, btw)

" This Has Yet To Be Seen. ok. "

The Randall's could stand to be rebranded to a smaller Whole Foods, but it isn't happening anytime soon.

" Agree. "

..and there's really no developable or redevelopable land left in any part of Bellaire that would be both desirable and large enough to accomodate a new grocery store.

" Actually, I believe that there might be several options along South Rice going towards 59.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a true statement.

And what are these "dozens" of condominions that have been in houston for decades?

Bayou Bend Towers 1981 22 floors

1400 Hermann converted 1977 17 floors

2016 Main converted 1979 26 floors

Park Square 1982 22 floors

3525 Sage 1975 17 floors

Warwick Towers 1983 30 floors

Houstonian Estates 1982 28 floors

Parklane 1983 35 floors

The Spires 1983 40 floors

The Willowick converted 1978 15 floors

The Huntingdon 1984 34 floors

5000 Montrose 1981 22 floors

The St. Clair 1982 13 floors

The Woodway 1974 19 floors

Four Leaf Towers East 1982 40 floors

Four Leaf Towers West 1982 40 floors

Inwood Manor converted 1978 16 floors

The Oxford 1981 20 floors

Regency House converted 1980 13 floors

The St. James 1975 25 floors

The Greenway I 1979 30 floors

The Greenway II 1979 30 floors

The Lamar Tower converted 1979 23 floors

The Parc IV converted 1978 12 floors

The Parc V converted 1978 12 floors

The River Oaks 1962 16 floors

The Tealstone 1984 15 floors

Woodway Place II 1982 20 floors

Executive House

The Campton at Post Oak

Added in the last decade or so:

Villa d'Este

The Rise

The Robinhood

The Mercer

The Royalton at River Oaks

Montebello

The Mark

Commerce Towers

Residences at the Four Seasons

(Removing these guys from my list of Houston high-rise condominiums because they are less than 10 floors tall.):

St. Germain

Bayou Lofts

Keystone Lofts

Franklin Lofts

I haven't even gone to Galveston or other suburban areas or listed any that are currently under construction. It seems just possible that these other cities, e.g. Dallas and Atlanta are at long last attempting to catch up with Houston in high-rise condominium living.

All you defenders of Nancy are ignoring what it is she wrote. As I quoted above, she wrote that Houston has been slow to develop high-rise condominiums Period. She didn't say that development has been slow in recent years. The list above (which does not even cover the entire metro area) shows how wrong that statement is. (And considering the second list above showing recently-added high-rises, and even then not even showing the currently under construction, I'm not sure it's even accurate to say that Houston has been particularly slow in recent years. Maybe compared to Miami, sure....)

I'd be very curious to see comparable lists for Dallas and Atlanta. So we could see just how slow Houston has been to develop high-rise condominiums.

Edited by Houston19514
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not accurate. There were more jobs added to the Houston area in both 1990 and 1998 than there were in 2006. Also, up until at least 2005, the most recent data from the Census, 1998 was the best year for multifamily permitting since 1983...since then the ratio of single-family permits to multifamily permits has increased dramatically. We also went bust in 2002 and 2003, but oddly enough, that's when the second-generation residential highrise trend caught on.

Strange but true...

Uh, what part of late 1990s did you not understand?

Everything I said was very true. Very little of any magnitude was built from the late 1980s until the late 1990s. This was due to the bust that crashed down upon us and left the city completely overbuilt. Also, to compare the "downturns" in 2002-3 with what happened in the 1980s is fairly silly. Besides the oil/energy bust, we were also dealing with the S&L scandal which hit Texas VERY hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Condo towers over 12 floors above ground that have been in Houston for over 20 plus years;

The Huntingdon (503 ft, 34 floors), Four Leaf Towers I (444 feet, 40 floors), Four Leaf Towers II (444 feet, 40 floors), The Spires (426 feet, 40 floors), The Parklane (390 feet, 36 floors), The Warwick Towers (361 feet, 30 floors), The Houstonian (310 feet, 28 floors), The Greenway I (300 feet, 30 floors), The Greenway II (300 feet, 30 floors), 2016 Main (296 feet, 26 floors), Bayou Bend Towers (246 feet, 22 floors), The Bristol (27 floors), The St James (25 floors), The Lamar Tower (23 floors), The Park Square (22 floors), 5000 Montrose (22 floors), Woodway Place (20 floors), The Oxford (20 floors), The Woodway (20 floors), Timber Top Condos (18 floors), The River Oaks (18 floors), The Conquistador (18 floors), 3525 Sage (17 floors), 1400 Hermann (17 floors), Inwood Manor (16 floors), The Tealstone (15 floors), The Sussex Tower I (15 floors), The Sussex Tower II (15 floors), The Willowick (15 floors), The St Clair (14 floors), The Regency House (13 floors), The Parc IV (12 floors), the Parc V (12 floors)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Condo towers over 12 floors above ground that have been in Houston for over 20 plus years;

The Huntingdon (503 ft, 34 floors), Four Leaf Towers I (444 feet, 40 floors), Four Leaf Towers II (444 feet, 40 floors), The Spires (426 feet, 40 floors), The Parklane (390 feet, 36 floors), The Warwick Towers (361 feet, 30 floors), The Houstonian (310 feet, 28 floors), The Greenway I (300 feet, 30 floors), The Greenway II (300 feet, 30 floors), 2016 Main (296 feet, 26 floors), Bayou Bend Towers (246 feet, 22 floors), The Bristol (27 floors), The St James (25 floors), The Lamar Tower (23 floors), The Park Square (22 floors), 5000 Montrose (22 floors), Woodway Place (20 floors), The Oxford (20 floors), The Woodway (20 floors), Timber Top Condos (18 floors), The River Oaks (18 floors), The Conquistador (18 floors), 3525 Sage (17 floors), 1400 Hermann (17 floors), Inwood Manor (16 floors), The Tealstone (15 floors), The Sussex Tower I (15 floors), The Sussex Tower II (15 floors), The Willowick (15 floors), The St Clair (14 floors), The Regency House (13 floors), The Parc IV (12 floors), the Parc V (12 floors)

I even remember that old saying "staying alive in '85 !"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Condo towers over 12 floors above ground that have been in Houston for over 20 plus years;

The Huntingdon (503 ft, 34 floors), Four Leaf Towers I (444 feet, 40 floors), Four Leaf Towers II (444 feet, 40 floors), The Spires (426 feet, 40 floors), The Parklane (390 feet, 36 floors), The Warwick Towers (361 feet, 30 floors), The Houstonian (310 feet, 28 floors), The Greenway I (300 feet, 30 floors), The Greenway II (300 feet, 30 floors), 2016 Main (296 feet, 26 floors), Bayou Bend Towers (246 feet, 22 floors), The Bristol (27 floors), The St James (25 floors), The Lamar Tower (23 floors), The Park Square (22 floors), 5000 Montrose (22 floors), Woodway Place (20 floors), The Oxford (20 floors), The Woodway (20 floors), Timber Top Condos (18 floors), The River Oaks (18 floors), The Conquistador (18 floors), 3525 Sage (17 floors), 1400 Hermann (17 floors), Inwood Manor (16 floors), The Tealstone (15 floors), The Sussex Tower I (15 floors), The Sussex Tower II (15 floors), The Willowick (15 floors), The St Clair (14 floors), The Regency House (13 floors), The Parc IV (12 floors), the Parc V (12 floors)

Nobody disputes a bunch of condos were built during the early '80s. Basically everything (apartments, office, retail, etc.. ) was overbuilt here then, as oil was on its way to $100 per barrell and Houston was the center of the world. And then the bust, over 100,000 people left town, and we had an overhang well into the '90s. But if we dispassionately look at the number of condos built- and their success- over the past 5-10 years, Houston lags behind its peer cites (Dallas and Atlanta, primarily).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody disputes a bunch of condos were built during the early '80s. Basically everything (apartments, office, retail, etc.. ) was overbuilt here then, as oil was on its way to $100 per barrell and Houston was the center of the world. And then the bust, over 100,000 people left town, and we had an overhang well into the '90s. But if we dispassionately look at the number of condos built- and their success- over the past 5-10 years, Houston lags behind its peer cites (Dallas and Atlanta, primarily).

Could be, although, other than the infamous and unreliable "common knowledge," nobody has shown that to actually be true. Seems like it might be, but I really don't know... In any event why do you insist on focusing only on the buildings built in the past 5-10 years? It seems likely that, if it's even true that Dallas and Atlanta have added more in the past 5-10 years, they are only now starting to catch up to the level Houston has had for quite some time. (And by the way, Houston wasn't the only city overbuilt in the 80s. Dallas was too, and they still haven't absorbed all of the overbuilt office space downtown.)

Edited by Houston19514
Link to post
Share on other sites
Could be, although, other than the infamous and unreliable "common knowledge" nobody has shown that to actually be true. Seems like it might be, but I really don't know... In any event why do you insist on focusing only on the buildings built in the past 5-10 years? It seems likely that, if it's even true that Dallas and Atlanta have added more in the past 5-10 years, they are only now starting to catch up to the level Houston has had for quite some time. (And by the way, Houston wasn't the only city overbuilt in the 80s. Dallas was too, and they still haven't absorbed all of the overbuilt office space downtown.)

a quick web search yields the following: http://www.highrises.com/city_buildings.as..._keyword=dallas

Not all new, not all condo, not necessarily everything in Dallas. But if someone wants to do a comparison, feel free.

And you are correct that the downtown Dallas office market is still in terrible shape. Never meant to suggest that Dallas is in any way better than Houston or has a stronger overall real estate market, just that it has had more condo demand over the past several years. As has Atlanta. Doesn't make Houston a bad place- I like it or wouldn't live here- just not a condo mecca (and as investors who bought condos here 25 years ago know, buying a condo here ain't necessarily all that wise anyway).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's what I could find for Dallas. I cannot guarantee it is absolutely complete, but I think it's pretty thorough, and I've included everything I could find 10 floors and above, even those in relatively suburban areas, and even those under construction (both of which categories I did NOT include in my listing for Houston in post # 213 above), and even with all that, I still only came up with 28 buildings, compared to my listing of 39 buildings in Houston without counting suburban area buildings or buildings under construction, which would add easily a half dozen more buildings to the Houston listing. Besides the lower quantity, it appears that on the whole the Dallas buildings are substantially shorter than the Houston buildings. Looks like Dallas has a lot more catching-up to do in the area of high-rise condominium living:

The Vendome 21 floors

The Mansion Residences 10 floors ?

The Claridge 18 floors ?

The Warrington 24 floors ?

La Tour 22 floors ?

3525 Turtle Creek 22 floors ?

The Goldcrest 12 floors ?

The Mayfair 22 floors ?

Park Towers 20 floors ?

3701 Turtle Creek 12 floors ?

Residences at Ritz Carlton 23 floors

"21" 23 floors ?

The Renaissance 22 floors ?

The Plaza II on Turtle Creek 15 floors ?

W Dallas

Crestpark in Highland Park 11 floors ?

The Travis 15 floors?

1505 Elm 18 floors ?

The Bonaventure (North Dallas) 15 floors ?

Preston Tower (North Dallas) 28 floors ?

The Athena (North Dallas) 21 floors ?

Azure 31 floors (Under construction? first condo taller than 30 floors?)

The House by Starck and Yoo 28 floors (under construction)

One Arts Plaza ? (Under construction)

The Stoneleigh 21 floors (Under construction)

The Metropolitan 25 floors (Under construction)

Centrum Tower 19 floors

Lake Cliff Tower 12 floors

Feel free to propose additions and corrections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't pretend to understand why, but this is just part of a larger neo-traditional movement that gains intensity from time to time. For some reason, many people are into resuscitated styles that hearken back to a bygone eras and far away places. In the 70's and 80's, faux-English and faux-Federal were the big things. Now we have faux-Mediterranian, faux-French, faux-Victorian, and faux-'urban'.

Yep, every few years for the past, oh, six or seven hundred or so.

It started with something called the Renaissance. I suppose the architectural styles of the day could be called faux-Greek or faux-Roman.

These things do not appeal to me. They are repetitive, lack creativity, and are indicative of the greater problem in society: faux-people.

So because Michelangelo repeated the architectural styles of the Renaissance (which faked the architectural styles of Greece and Rome), broke a few rules and Mannerism was born, should he be dismissed for his lack of creativity? The big fake!

(Does that makes him a faux-faux? And can you say that out loud without giggling? :D )

I mean, I get what you're saying. There have been some truly dreadful interpretations of the styles you mention. One wishes that architecture would exploit the advantages of modern building techniques and minimize their weaknesses. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is quite common. It's called bad architecture, and no style is exempt - or can you enlighten us?

Strangely, the years can be kind. When Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Rochester, NY in the mid-19th century, he commented scornfully on the "pretentious" columns featured on many of the grander homes. If one was to make the same criticism today, he would be judged quite a snob; they're lovely houses.

"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough." -

Chinatown

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, what part of late 1990s did you not understand?

Everything I said was very true. Very little of any magnitude was built from the late 1980s until the late 1990s. This was due to the bust that crashed down upon us and left the city completely overbuilt. Also, to compare the "downturns" in 2002-3 with what happened in the 1980s is fairly silly. Besides the oil/energy bust, we were also dealing with the S&L scandal which hit Texas VERY hard.

I concede. I must've glossed over the word "late".

A bust is a bust, though. Some are more severe, but in either case, you'd tend not to expect that a bust would be perfect timing for a wave of condo towers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Politicians, ugly buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough." -

Chinatown

Strange how that works...

Btw, the Greco-Roman influences annoy me too. Basically any time that an architect tries to 'pay homage' to something, I get annoyed. Take the Federal Reserve building. I can't stand that blue trim! Very few people can, it seems. But it was the architect's attempt to pay homage to the original Federal Reserve building, which was built in the Moorish style with blue lines. I could personally care less, and think that we would've been better off with something free of association with anything else. Similarly, I like the general shape of Johnson's Bank of America building when viewed from afar, but could've done without the gothic and Dutch ornamentation.

But at least the above examples are themselves originial. The residential-over-retail formula is just a cookie-cutter style IMO. It should get no more respect from the architectural community as would tract housing. That is not to say that other groups, like environmentalists, humanists, etc. shouldn't take an interest, but that is apart from the aesthetic matter.

Anyway, as interesting as this discussion is, and as much as it adds to the central objective of HAIF, it is a tangent of a tangent of a tangent. So I'll back off now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of torn by this project. On one hand I think it would be awesome to have this right near the heart of the Galleria but at the same time I don't want it to take away from the momentum that downtown will hopefully build upon with Houston Pavilions and the Finger Building. I would like to see the Pavilions established and in the minds of the Houston public before BLVD Place gets built because I feel it will compete somewhat with the Pavilions. Hopefully within the next year as the Pavilions and the Finger tower draw closer to completion we'll hear more good news about tenants signing onto Pavilions and hopefully spurring some new projects for downtown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonah-

I get what you are saying but I think the Pavilions and BLVD Place will be two totally separate entities that will draw from two totally different markets.

The Pavilions will draw a younger crowd to see shows at the House of Blues and to hang out at Lucky Strike. It will definitely serve the lunch time office crowd in the Houston Center and other areas as well. I also see it being used by the city to try and land larger conventions and sporting events and to give people at all the downtown hotels (the hotels do really well monday through thursday) something to do close by. It will also probably be a place for people to go pre and post game (Rockets, Comets, Aeros, Astros).

On the other hand, BLVD Place will be serving the already established near westside market. Whole Foods will draw in folks from Tanglewood, Briargrove, Memorial Villages, River Oaks, Afton Oaks, etc... With 800 units of residential planned as well as a luxury hotel, it will also serve the needs of the thousand or so people who live, work, or stay there. Depending upon the retail it is able to land, it will naturally be an extension to the Galleria.

I think there is room in Houston for both

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Ok now, its been years since this thing was announced, and nothing has happened yet. I think its pretty safe to say that it won't happen. I have seen projects announced a month before they start. They haven't even torn down the old buildings on that lot. What do you all think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok now, its been years since this thing was announced, and nothing has happened yet. I think its pretty safe to say that it won't happen. I have seen projects announced a month before they start. They haven't even torn down the old buildings on that lot. What do you all think?

I think that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The retail gods shone brightly upon this site when Whole Foods selected it for a flagship store. In addition to such a weighty anchor, the developer has extensive experience and owns a top-notch site.

Of all the proposed Uptown projects, this is probably the most likely to break ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The retail gods shone brightly upon this site when Whole Foods selected it for a flagship store. In addition to such a weighty anchor, the developer has extensive experience and owns a top-notch site.

Of all the proposed Uptown projects, this is probably the most likely to break ground.

Oh yeah, usually you here about stuff happening, but the flagship Whole Foods was announced probably over a year ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah, usually you here about stuff happening, but the flagship Whole Foods was announced probably over a year ago.

Word on the street is that they have not made much project in retail leasing beyond Whole Foods. Hanover is slated to build high-rise apartments and they are appearently working to bring in a Ritz Carlton (with condos?), but this project does not appear to be moving forward anywhere near as quickly as might have been expected.

Edited by buildingunbuildingrebuilding
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many years went by from the time that HP was announced to the time they started construction? 4?

When was BLVD announced? I'm just wondering when it really will be time to write this one off. Seems to early to give up on BLVD right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok now, its been years since this thing was announced, and nothing has happened yet. I think its pretty safe to say that it won't happen. I have seen projects announced a month before they start. They haven't even torn down the old buildings on that lot. What do you all think?

I can matter-of-factly say this project is still very much a go.

There always are changes on projects this big.

Just becasue you havent heard anything, and there is nothing major to report, does not mean the cogs to getting it designed/leased/built aren't silently still turning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I can matter-of-factly say this project is still very much a go.

There always are changes on projects this big.

Just because you haven't heard anything, and there is nothing major to report, does not mean the cogs to getting it designed/leased/built aren't silently still turning.

Well when developers have projects like this, I don't think they should announce them until its time. Don't announce 6 years ahead and have people waiting on it. Do like the memorial city malls surrounding development, they announced a month before construction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well when developers have projects like this, I don't think they should announce them until its time. Don't announce 6 years ahead and have people waiting on it. Do like the memorial city malls surrounding development, they announced a month before construction.

The plans for Memorial City Mall were "leaked" years before construction started.

Again, projects as large as this one TAKE TIME. Relax. Go back and read what I typed on the Pavilions page. It's the same thing here TIMES TEN. They are closing a city street. They are building a new city street. They are relocating several current tenants and major players in the Houston dining scene. They are not only tearing down a strip mall (think Eatzi's) but also a residential street and the old Saks Pavilion. That is a HUGE undertaking.

It'll get really tiresome if this thread falls victim to the Pavilions syndrome which struck so many on here.

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...