nate

This was featured in today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119257756005161262.html

Clutterbuck said City Hall will have to find alternatives to zoning, which Houston voters have opposed.

when the developers hear the word zoning...they'll be out in full force opposing it. implementing alternatives might have more of a chance of occurring.

Yes and no.

Big, politically connected developers embrace zoning because they can get their projects approved and use the zoning process to limit competition.

New entrants and smaller developers may oppose.

But the people that will really suffer under zoning will be average citizens who will have to eat the inevitable increase in the cost of housing/products and the reduction in choice.

The rendering is out for this building. I'm surprised nobody has posted it. You can find it on the Skyscraper forum.

I posted it a few days ago.

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...st&p=201501

Here is a rendering of the project: http://www.buckfund.com/nss-folder/1717%20.../07018-A401.jpg

It continually amazes me that people here (and in general) are not only willing, but eager, to turn their lives and property rights over to government.

The immediately adjacent property owners are the only ones that will truly be negatively impacted. And that negative impact will be limited to noise during construction and altered sunlight patterns. (most of the area is shaded by beautiful trees anyway) These concerns are not enough to dismantle the entire system of private property rights than Houstonians enjoy.

I noticed some land was being cleared near Grey and Caroline. Anybody have any idea what's going on?

I believe that Advantage BMW is building a new showroom.

The group seemed intent on organizing and taking legal action. And the civic association has already started raising funds for a legal team.

What would be their cause of action?

I agree this is better suited for Main Street. They could plop this on the Greyhound station site and nobody in Midtown would complain about it being 28 stories. Or it could be around the other high-rise buildings between Montrose and the Museum district.

Probably no complaints if it were on Main, but I would rather live in Southampton, as would most people.

Sounds like a nice place to live.

When I first saw this thread, my initial reaction was that there would be a lot of upset, wealthy homeowners nearby. The news story proves my intuition right.

Who is the developer and what is the project website? How many apartments are currently on the site?

a system providing efficient, convenient transportation is a good system whatever it may be.

what model car do you drive?

Image combined with the federal subsidy is why light rail lines continue to be built. METRORail makes no sense otherwise. It is no more useful than buses at far greater cost.

I'll ask again... how would the design of this building be any different if it were on the West Loop feeder road?

It would be setback at least 20 feet, have a small surface parking lot and a landscape barrier.

What more do you want of MainPlace? Plans call for street level retail and a lobby with direct access to the street.

Please state specifically how they could enliven the street environment. Then ask if your recommendations are commercially viable.

Good news that they dropped the western theme. That had potential to the be the cheesiest place in America.

This project looks interesting, but I don't like the tax credits.

I don't understand why they have to demolish structures when their is empty parking lots two blocks away along Main. Is their a logical reason for this?

I assume that you are talking about Texas at Main?

Give it time, that lot is not going to be vacant for much longer.

350,000 square feet of retail space of which apparently half is spoken for

Not so fast. The HBJ article only says that there is "preliminary interest in more than half of the projected 350,000 square feet of retail space."

Still good, but it doesn't sound like there are leases in place.

The sheer amount of new retail space coming on line around 2010 Uptown is simply amazing. And the traffic is already a nightmare.

Other than the "free" land from GM, how is any of the above different from what downtown Houston offers? You are aware that downtown Houston is part of a TIRR that offers huge tax breaks for development and even goes so far as to wave city taxes for condo buyers aren't you?

What is a TIRR?

I know that there are several TIRZ districts that cover portions of downtown. The City Center project might be in the Main Street/Market Square district. But a TIRZ is not a tax break. Property owners in TIRZ districts pay normally increasing taxes. The increase over the baseline in collections is used for public improvements in the district. It is a benefit that I don't think should be given, but it really is not a tax break.

As for waiving city taxes for condo buyers, I have never heard of this. Could you please provide a link? However, I am aware that certain "historic" sites have been given tax abatements. Perhaps some renovated condo buildings downtown recieved these. If they did, they should not have. But, the City Center won't be given a tax abatement.

I don't think the Detroit project massively subsidized--at least not from the government. General Motors owns the land and will basically give Hines the building and share in the profits. If it's successful, then Hines gets to build several more towers on the land owned by GM.

Please tell me that you didn't think it was subsidized simply by the mere mention of Detroit. Private companies did the research, and private companies are behind the work. Last time I cheked, GM wasn't really in the land development business--Hines also did their renovations to the Rennaisance Center to make it into GM's headquarters.

So like I said, if the MARKET is saying to Hines in Detroit that it's feasible to build a rather large condo tower (starting in the $300,000s I think) that is NOT government subsidized, then Houston should be a shoe-in. As a matter of fact, I think there are at least 2-3 condo towers under consideration, approved, or under construction there--not government subsidized.

EDIT: Link to Detroit project--http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070621/BIZ/706210416&theme=Metro-Detroit-Riverfront

Thanks for the link.

Please note the following from that article:

Hines will head up the development project, though GM will weigh in on any plans.

The riverfront for years offered little more than a few struggling businesses, dilapidated buildings and acres of land scarred by heavy industry. The area is now designated as a Renaissance Zone, allowing for significant tax breaks.

What is a Renaissance Zone?: http://www.degc.org/main.cfm?location=54 & http://www.ci.detroit.mi.us/renzones/default.htm

The Renaissance Zone program is a collaborative effort between the City of Detroit, the County of Wayne, and the State of Michigan to give tax incentives to residents and businesses. The City of Detroit has designated sixteen areas as Renaissance Zones. This program works to encourage economic stability and development within the eight designated areas of the City. The resident or business must be physically located within one of the sixteen sub-zones and must be qualified.

These tax incentives include a waiver of city income and utility users taxes, most city property taxes, county property taxes, and state income tax or single business tax. The program applies to participants who live, own property, or businesses conducting business within the area and are not delinquent in any local, county, or state taxes.

Since this program involves the exemption of tax and applies to businesses and residents alike, it is crucial for participants to apply and qualify, through the Renaissance Zone Processing Center, for these tax benefits.

Do you still think that this is not a subsidized project? Besides being exempt from most taxes, I would not be suprised if TIF financing were available and don't have time to look into it. Not to mention that GM is giving away land in order to have the small income stream from condo sales. Hines has done a good job reducing their risk on that project. They don't have to buy the land, don't have to pay taxes, maybe TIF financing, their condo buyers will be exempt from taxation, etc. A Houston project would require a larger financial commitment and entail more risk. They will not get TIF financing, they will not get tax breaks (perhaps PAY impact fees), any office space will have to compete with other new construction, any condos will compete with other condos and SFRs all over Houston, etc. These are not comprable projects.

Well I hope it's a go. If Hines can take on a massive new condo tower project in Detroit, the company can certainly do that here, I'd say.

There is a big difference between a massively subsidized project and something that will have to compete on market terms in one of the most competieve environments in the world.

I still think this is dead in the water. Credit, lenders aside - either a product is the product for the market, positioned correctly and at the right price or it will tank. I think this just tanked.

What makes you think that?

There are only 13 of 93 units still for sale. This project sounds like a success. Even if the lender goes belly-up (unlikely), this is the type of loan that would be picked up by another party.

If the construction crew screwed up the foundation of another building, there might be delays while that is fixed, but the project is not dead.

The pessimism here is astounding. 2727 Kirby will be completed and will be a beautiful building.

The responses in this thread crack me up. I love how so many people think that they know more about shopping center development than Trammell Crow.

To me, this looks like it will be a successful project and will be good for the area.

Having read this same style of argument in numerous threads, I started asking myself, 'why are these posters so bound and determined to turn Houston into some other city, or worse, The Woodlands or some other suburb?'

I believe it is the same thing that drives everything else in this country...pop culture.  Not pop music, although that is a big part of pop culture, but the culture itself.  Pop is short for popular.  The popular culture in the US is rampant sameness.  We are constantly bombarded by media and marketing telling us what is 'in' or 'hip' or 'cool' or any number of other current terms that signify that we are in the vanguard of society. 

The problem is, while we constantly look to see what the 'hip' people are wearing, or where they are living, we are handcuffing our own individuality.  If you are obsessed with what everyone else does, and strive to imitate it, you are far from 'hip'...you are a slave to fashion.

Houston's personality comes from the fact that it used not to be a slave to fashion.  It marched to its own beat, similar, though a different beat, to New Orleans, for instance.  Lately, Houston is in danger of losing that individuality.  There are those who are terrified that Houston will not be the same as New York, Chicago or LA...or even Dallas.  We cry that downtown should look more like Dallas' or Chicago's.  We try to rename our districts to sound like New York's.  We have threads on this forum devoted to whether we have as many 'upscale' stores as Dallas...as if that means something.

This obsession with trying to be like everyone else suggests an insecurity with oneself.  Houston at times, suffers from this obsession on a citywide scale.  However, nowhere is this more evident than in the comments of those who do not even deign to live inside the city itself.  Those who choose to live in the vast plains of sameness insist that those of us who are trying to salvage the city's individuality cease and desist and conform to the norms of the masses.  They cry that Houston is doomed if it does not conform to the edict of Madison Avenue and become Dallas.

I hope Houston does not succumb to the pressure to conform.  I hope we do not enact zoning.  I hope we don't try to recreate The Woodlands inside the Loop.  I hope we don't let Uptown creep outside of its niche next to the west loop.  And most of all, I hope the litmus test for all new development does not become whether it is 'family friendly', for that is just a recipe for boring sameness.

The Pavillions will genrate traffic for downtown.  That is good.  The park will add to the things to do downtown.  The redevelopment of the bayou will add to the beauty of downtown.  But, if all new development merely aims to attract families by day, and upper middle class whites by night, it will miss the point.  I'd love to see a downtown that attracts, not only these groups, but hip-hoppers, latinos, skaters and others.  It is only by having all Houstonians enjoying downtown will it be worth bragging about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Amen, brother.

A lot of people on this forum wish that Houston would be more like Uptown Dallas. That would be a disaster. Uptown Dallas is attractive in many parts, but it is just so sterile. There is very little demographic diversity and very little architectual diversity. Other people I know have said the same thing.

Remember what Philip Johnson said: "I like Houston. It's the last great 19th-century city. Houston has a spirit about it that is truly American, an optimism. People there aren't afraid to try something new."

Keep it up. Don't become Dallas, don't enact zoning. In other works, keep blazing the trail. Stay Houston.

Just for the record, the average weekend rates at the Hilton Americas run upwards of $135-140/night. Weeknight rates are running about twice that, in the $260-300/night range. And the occupancy rate is often more than 50%. My parents stayed at the hotel two weeks ago and the occupancy rate that weekend was way over 50%, as the place was packed both Friday and Saturday night. Both the restaurant on the first floor and the coffee bar were doing a booming business at breakfast on that Saturday, with many people buying the $14 breakfast buffet.

Hotels don't just make money off guest rooms. There's a ton of profit in their catering and meeting room services, as well as bars and restaurants. The Hilton Americas handles a ton of smaller meetings and conferences, which all pay for meeting room rentals and food, and if the event is pulling in out-of-towners, guestrooms.

I don't think the Hilton Americas is hurting all that much. If it was, Hilton would be offering some much better weekend specials at the property than they are to keep it full.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tonight, I could stay at the Hilton for $109. Next weekend, I can get a room for $89. Source: hilton.com

Maybe the Hilton is doing better than other convention center hotels, I don't konw. It is a fact that convention center hotels around the country regularly have terrible vacancy rates and dirt cheap rooms.

If the hotel made business sense, why didn't a hotelier build when the convention center opened? The answer is that without taxpayer subsidies, the hotel probably would not be profitable.

I beg to differ sir.  Complete free enterprise doesn

nate, a TIRZ does not give subsidies or tax breaks to a company or a development.  It dedicates the increase in tax revenue that results from increasing property values to be spent in the area that increased in value.  In other words, the increased taxes are spent on public works projects, such as streets, signs and landscaping in the area that pays the taxes.  It encourages more spending by the private companies, without giving them any handouts.

TIRZ' can be abused, to be sure, but the tax revenue does technically go to the benefit of the citizens by improving the public infrastructure.  They are intended to be used to improve depressed areas, as I am sure most would agree that downtown main street was depressed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, the area around the Pavillions will have great landscaping for the next 30 years while the rest of the city crumbles because tax revenue cannot be spent outside the district. Last that I checked, midtown had great roads and nice sidewalks. Much of the rest of Houston is in dire need of street repair.

Targeting development in city approved areas is dangerous.

The NFL and the annual Quilt Convention, as well as lots of others, would beg to differ on your opinion that the GRB is a "white elephant."  So do I.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does anyone think that Hilton would have ever built the Hilton of the Americas without taxpayer support?

Does anyone think a fancy hotel with $75 rooms and 50% vacancy is a good business venture?

The convention business has been in the toilet for years, but cities all over the country continue to use their taxpayer's money to finance these insane projects. I simply don't understand what the convention business does for Houston that is so worthy of this subsidy. So some quilters spend two days downtown and go to a bar on mainstreet and return to their $75 city-subsidized room. Nice. Is that worth the millions spent by the public? I don't think so. Why ask poor people in East Houston to pay higher taxes so that some quilters can enjoy the pleasures of downtown Houston?

Good article.

Let's hope the city agrees on letting the TIRZ expand.  Those districts have long been a great catalyst for development.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Terrible idea. They may help develop certain areas, but at the expense the rest of the city.

I don't want the city giving subsidies or tax breaks to anyone. Houston is a wonderful city because of competition. We have no zoning, which keeps costs low and supply abundant. I hope that Houston continues to let private ventures rise or fall on the merits. Is it fair to developers Uptown or elsewhere that they have to compete with a subsidized development downtown? I don't think so. If this will not be profitable, then it should not be built. Cut and dry. Don't ask the taxpayers to prop up white elephants like our convention business or the disastrous redevelopment projects that cities all over the country have tried.