Regent Square: Mixed-Use On Allen Parkway At Dunlavy St.

[RedScare]

But we don't know of any tenants yet, right? And who knows, while this project is grand in scale it still seems to be modest, at least in architecture. So maybe the the tenants will to...or not. We'll see.

lockmat, put down the mushroom tea. The location of this development (to the east of River Oaks) all but REQUIRES that the tenant mix be the same stuffy, overpriced retailers that one finds to the west and south of River Oaks...oh, and a Subway.

[TheNiche]

This isn't necessarily bad, but just an observation. How come guys like you, niche and red never say yall like developments. Maybe yall do and I just miss it. But it's either an objective opinion which is fine, or it's negative. But almost never any compliments.

In this case, because the scale is impressive, but the architecture itself is canned neotraditional blah. It isn't terrible, like the condo towers in S. Padre that you recently posted about, but also isn't any Pennzoil Place. Considering the location and size, it is appropriate to meet market demand. Only appropriate. And that just doesn't warrant particular comment.

[lockmat]

lockmat, put down the mushroom tea. The location of this development (to the east of River Oaks) all but REQUIRES that the tenant mix be the same stuffy, overpriced retailers that one finds to the west and south of River Oaks...oh, and a Subway.

So why is subdude worried about there being the right tenant mix for the community? If it is stuffy, it'll fit right in.

In this case, because the scale is impressive, but the architecture itself is canned neotraditional blah. It isn't terrible, like the condo towers in S. Padre that you recently posted about, but also isn't any Pennzoil Place. Considering the location and size, it is appropriate to meet market demand. Only appropriate. And that just doesn't warrant particular comment.

True, but at least it isn't trying too hard like The Woodlands Market Street faux.

Edited May 25, 2008 by lockmat

[TheNiche]

I'm just hoping that the actual results will be just as convincing as these renderings.

This is another thing. The end project is usually not as attractive as the rendering, and I can't recall even one that looks better than the rendering. What you see is the best possible outcome.

I'm hesitant to proclaim a project great because of a great rendering, but if the rendering already sucks, I'm inclined to think that the end product built to those specs is going to look at least as bad.

And of course, there's always the possibility that the rendering gets thrown out.

Saying "This is great!" adds a whole lot more to the conversation than posts some people make just to pick on other members.

FWIW, lockmat's question did seem to spur some meaningful commentary. I don't mind being prodded now and again.

[RedScare]

So why is subdude worried about there being the right tenant mix for the community? If it is stuffy, it'll fit right in.

I don't know. Maybe he'll chime back in. This is one development that the price of rents would seem to guarantee that the resident and retailers match.

True, but at least it isn't trying too hard like The Woodlands Market Street faux.

Good description of Market Street. They are simply trying too hard.

[UrbaNerd]

This is another thing. The end project is usually not as attractive as the rendering, and I can't recall even one that looks better than the rendering. What you see is the best possible outcome.

Of course the rendering will attempt to present a product in the best possible light; they are trying to sell it to someone/a certain demographic after all.

What I meant regarding my previous statement was the desire for that the subtleties and such portrayed in the renderings to be preserved in real life once the project is completed, or at least for some sort of resemblance to the projections.

As someone stated above, I at least appreciate the fact that the architecture is not going on an excessively trite level, like Market Street. This is perfect example of a project which is overly encrusted with neoclassical elements; it has more of a superficial appeal to superficial people who want to have the "canned Disneyland experience" (complete with the long waits, and overpriced crap) without the idiots in suits parading about. At least in RS, the so called "canned" architectural elements are applied in a much more reserved manner; there is less "makeup" applied to the facades. Sure, it may still be somewhat superficial, but at least it is somewhat more convincing than the other examples.

While we are on this note; perhaps you could show us examples of architecture and projects from recent history, and modern times that you do appreciate, eh Niche?

Edited May 25, 2008 by UrbaNerd

[lockmat]

Stitched 'em up...

I believe this is gonna be one place where people will walk around and think, "I'm not in Kansas anymore." I think it's gonna feel real homey(sp?).

Edited May 26, 2008 by lockmat

[roadrunner]

Reminds me of Boston. Very cool.

And I'm impressed that they really didn't scale back the scope. This could be fantastic.

[dbigtex56]

So why is subdude worried about there being the right tenant mix for the community? If it is stuffy, it'll fit right in.

Well, that's the thing.

Perhaps if the developers included some subsidized housing in their plans, the 'urban experience' might be a trifle more authentic.

These socialist, commie ideas seem to work pretty well in Toronto.

[TheNiche]

Of course the rendering will attempt to present a product in the best possible light; they are trying to sell it to someone/a certain demographic after all.

What I meant regarding my previous statement was the desire for that the subtleties and such portrayed in the renderings to be preserved in real life once the project is completed, or at least for some sort of resemblance to the projections.

As someone stated above, I at least appreciate the fact that the architecture is not going on an excessively trite level, like Market Street. This is perfect example of a project which is overly encrusted with neoclassical elements; it has more of a superficial appeal to superficial people who want to have the "canned Disneyland experience" (complete with the long waits, and overpriced crap) without the idiots in suits parading about. At least in RS, the so called "canned" architectural elements are applied in a much more reserved manner; there is less "makeup" applied to the facades. Sure, it may still be somewhat superficial, but at least it is somewhat more convincing than the other examples.

While we are on this note; perhaps you could show us examples of architecture and projects from recent history, and modern times that you do appreciate, eh Niche?

roadrunner is spot on. It looks like Boston. ...well aside from that odd concrete form in the last rendering, hanging in the sky with sparkling light underneath it. I'm not sure what to make of that.

But I thought the exact same thing when I first saw lockmat's post. And it probably looks like Boston because that's where the developers are from. That something is a more convincing fake doesn't add a whole lot of value in my eyes. It is what it is, and whether a fake with class or a fake without class, it is a fake.

Examples of recent buildings/renderings that I like: Memorial Hermann Medical Plaza, Mosaic, and nearly anything developed by Hines (including their parking garage on Main).

Older product that I like is all over the place in Houston. Our boomtimes were in a good moment of architectural histroy, IMO, and I'm thankful that we don't have all the cheesy spires of Atlanta. I'm not even sure where to start, except to say that from time to time, an angle of a building that I've seen a hundred times will pop out at me as being just magnificent...large buildings and small buildings alike.

[musicman]

Stitched 'em up...

I believe this is gonna be one place where people will walk around and think, "I'm not in Kansas anymore." I think it's gonna feel real homey(sp?).

the overview post in 207 sure doesn't look like these pics. are these just representative of the types of buildings? some of the public areas look large compared to the 207 renderings.

Edited May 26, 2008 by musicman

[KinkaidAlum]

Actually, it doesn't really look like Boston at all. There are no Victorian Bowfronts (South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill). There are no triple deckers (Dorchester, JP, Mattapan). There are no single family homes (West Roxbury, JP). There are no highrises (Back Bay, Financial Center, Fort Point, Longwood).

However, the scale is similar to much of Boston. Walkable and dense without being overwhelming (like Manhattan can be).

[UrbaNerd]

Examples of recent buildings/renderings that I like: Memorial Hermann Medical Plaza, Mosaic, and nearly anything developed by Hines (including their parking garage on Main).

Older product that I like is all over the place in Houston. Our boomtimes were in a good moment of architectural histroy, IMO, and I'm thankful that we don't have all the cheesy spires of Atlanta. I'm not even sure where to start, except to say that from time to time, an angle of a building that I've seen a hundred times will pop out at me as being just magnificent...large buildings and small buildings alike.

So essentially, you prefer things without excessive architectural embellishments; more of function over form. I agree that a lot of the towers from our boomtimes are quite timeless in their architectural being, since they lack the elements that date a structure. How about some of the other things going up in the TMC? One in particular I was wondering about is the recently built UT School Of Nursing, designed by Lake Flato. Of course, there are also obvious attempts to stamp neoclassical elements on new structures (MD Anderson Ambulatory), but of course, Postmodernism qualifies as a real style in itself (which is why some consider it a paradox). Then again, some people enjoy living in a paradox and a parody of what real life is supposed to be.

So, if you were to design such a "redevelopment/development", what would it look like? What exactly is "real" to you, anyway (besides function over form)? What would the materials/forms and such be?

[TheNiche]

So essentially, you prefer things without excessive architectural embellishments; more of function over form. I agree that a lot of the towers from our boomtimes are quite timeless in their architectural being, since they lack the elements that date a structure. How about some of the other things going up in the TMC? One in particular I was wondering about is the recently built UT School Of Nursing, designed by Lake Flato. Of course, there are also obvious attempts to stamp neoclassical elements on new structures (MD Anderson Ambulatory), but of course, Postmodernism qualifies as a real style in itself (which is why some consider it a paradox). Then again, some people enjoy living in a paradox and a parody of what real life is supposed to be.

I've toured the School of Nursing, and the aspects that interested me most were mechanical and structural; for instance floor-vented HVAC, the sunshades, and the fly ash concrete stairwells. Items such as the use of recycled bricks and lumber from local sources were done to get a point towards LEED certification, so they're forgiven because they had a goal that had to be met...otherwise, I'd be perplexed at them. And aesthetically, the building really does come across as a bit confused, as seems to be a post-modern trademark...and if I ever bothered to connect architecture and philosophy, I might actually object to a confused School of Nursing.

But I don't bother to connect the two, or to derive meaning. I simply know what I like when I see it, whether in person or in the mind's eye.

So, if you were to design such a "redevelopment/development", what would it look like? What exactly is "real" to you, anyway (besides function over form)? What would the materials/forms and such be?

Well as it happens, I have had input into the design elements of various developments, but with few exceptions, the idea was not to stray too far from the norm, to end up with something that lenders wouldn't object to, that is tried and true, and that will be accepted by more than just the design elite of the population. Mediocrity is no accident and innovation is incremental.

But market performance aside, "real" is IMO foremostly functional and secondarily delightful. In my own view, structural strength (survivability) is the most critical part of function. Security is second on the list. Basically, follow Maslow's pyramid from the bottom up. Delight is site-specific. I cannot specify a general rule because none applies.

[roadrunner]

Actually, it doesn't really look like Boston at all. There are no Victorian Bowfronts (South End, Back Bay, Beacon Hill). There are no triple deckers (Dorchester, JP, Mattapan). There are no single family homes (West Roxbury, JP). There are no highrises (Back Bay, Financial Center, Fort Point, Longwood).

However, the scale is similar to much of Boston. Walkable and dense without being overwhelming (like Manhattan can be).

That's really what I meant. Nothing specifically in Boston, but the style and midrise density.

[lockmat]

http://swamplot.com/the-new-regent-square-...ngs/2008-05-27/

New info from swamplot...

1) The redesign was due to the high cost of underground parking. By re-aligning the buildings they were able add one parking garage on the Dunlavy side and make the garage on Tirrell a more efficient use of space.

2) The 3-floor building on the SW corner of Dunlavy & W. Dallas will be the leasing center for the apartments and will have the gym, pool, etc up on the roof

3) The first building on the south side of W. Dallas as you come east on W. Dallas (it is between the cemetery and the cul-de-sac turn-around-thingy) will be a 22 story condo tower. Second, the building on the SE corner of Allen Parkway and Tirrell will also be condos, however, they are planning on building the W. Dallas tower first and then the one on Tirrell when market conditions are right, so it (the Allen Pky & Tirrell tower) is not part of phase one.

4) The building at the SW corner of Dunlavy & Allen Pkwy will be an office building and have some sort of LEED certification (as will the condos, but not the apartment buildings). The whole complex has some sort of LEED rating for being mixed-use.

5) The red triangle just north of W. Dallas and west of the W. Dallas & Dunlavy intersection will be a bar.

6) They had originally asked the city to make W. Dallas one lane in either direction, with a shared left-turn lane, but have delayed it for a bit while the city analyzes all the streets over the next few years. Also mentioned further down the road would be a stoplight at Allen Pkwy & Dunlavy

7) The timeline was presented: they

[swtsig]

this is easily my favorite project in our fair city.

[The Great Hizzy!]

It certainly seems to be the most ambitious. Sort of like Hardy Yard, except a bit further out and without the need for hazardous site abatement and that sort of thing.

[KinkaidAlum]

Wow. I had no idea they were planning on building tall. The print at swamplot says a first tower on West Dallas will be 22 stories tall. From all the images I have seen, it seemed as if the tallest would be about 10 floors above ground.

This thing is going to be huge.

[lockmat]

Wow. I had no idea they were planning on building tall. The print at swamplot says a first tower on West Dallas will be 22 stories tall. From all the images I have seen, it seemed as if the tallest would be about 10 floors above ground.

This thing is going to be huge.

I don't get the feeling it's all fabricated either, like people will be living in The Truman Show. I think it'll feel very natural, even in Houston.

If you take a look at the tall picture, look at the building on the bottom right, I think on Allen Pkwy. That building looks pretty tall.

[RedScare]

So, has anyone figured out exactly where the diagonal street connects to W Gray? Is it at the dead end west of Kroger?

EDIT: Nevermind. It doesn't connect to Gray at all. It connects to W CLAY.

Sorry.

Edited May 27, 2008 by RedScare

[Triton]

I don't get the feeling it's all fabricated either, like people will be living in The Truman Show. I think it'll feel very natural, even in Houston.

If you take a look at the tall picture, look at the building on the bottom right, I think on Allen Pkwy. That building looks pretty tall.

You're right. It does look tall:

<<<<<<

[Subdude]

Also mentioned further down the road would be a stoplight at Allen Pkwy & Dunlavy

I can see where they would need some traffic control there. Couldn't it be a roundabout?

[musicman]

I can see where they would need some traffic control there. Couldn't it be a roundabout?

the ROW required would probably be too large.

[TheNiche]

I can see where they would need some traffic control there. Couldn't it be a roundabout?

GOOD GOD, NO! Those things are wasteful of land, aren't pedestrian-friendly, and raise my blood pressure.

[Trae]

GOOD GOD, NO! Those things are wasteful of land, aren't pedestrian-friendly, and raise my blood pressure.

"Please God, let there me more roundabouts in the Houston area. Preferable, on the street that theNiche lives on. In this your name I pray. Amen."

[TheNiche]

"Please God, let there me more roundabouts in the Houston area. Preferable, on the street that theNiche lives on. In this your name I pray. Amen."

That's very childish, Trae.

[Trae]

Was just playing. Don't wish any harm on you Niche. I thought the blood pressure on the roundabout part was a joke made by you. Guess not .

Edited May 29, 2008 by Trae

[crunchtastic]

GOOD GOD, NO! Those things are wasteful of land, aren't pedestrian-friendly, and raise my blood pressure.

Look kids! Big Ben! Parliament!

Niche is right. Traffic circles and people are generally a bad mix. For sheer terror, some of the ones in Italy I've come across (especially Rome) don't even have lanes. Good times. Ciao.

They must have made sense when they were built, in old cities with odd angled intersections, streets not on a grid pattern, etc. However, a roundabout at Allen Pkwy and Dunlavy would be more suicidal than the Allen Parkway ramps to the Pierce Elevated, if that's even possible. People fly through there, there's little frontage, like Musicman said, a major cross street and bridge a few hundred feet away.

I guess the only thing would be a full stop and dedicated left turn lanes. You could leave it alone, but with the added congestion, it would back up past the Waugh exit too much, stacking people on Dunlavy waiting to turn east. Where Dunlavy meets AP, you can hard right to the Waugh exit lane, or you can swing out to catch Allen Parwkay. Of course you have all the people veering into the Waugh exit lane at 60 mph, after cresting a slight hill and turn. It's crazy already at that intersection.

[20thStDad]

I haven't found it that hard to turn east on Allen Pkwy from Dunlavy, the light down at Shepherd creates good enough gaps. You just have to book it sometimes. The left turn from Allen-west to Dunlavy has a short lane right now, mainly because there's a left turn right before that. Perhaps those 2 turn lanes could be joined up for a longer lane. As long as they keep it no left turn onto Allen I think that will work fine. It's too close to the Waugh underpass to do much else I think. I doubt widening the ROW is an option because even if they wanted to cut into the hike/bike trail area, there's a cemetary right across from Dunlavy.