H-Town Man

Here's my take on this. As you can see, drawing is not a strong point for me. From the base, there would be about 2-floors of retail/parking garage + underground parking. A garden would be placed on the roof of the parking garage, like 609 Main. Tunnel access for the building would be something similar to Capitol Tower. The lower portion of the tower would be used for 40-floors of office space and 20-floors of hotel space. For the center portion, it would be two 20-foot floors, one for a restaurant and the other for events/parties. The upper portion of the tower would be 30-floors of residential units. At the top, a pool for residents, tenants, and guest. 94-floors at ~1,300 ft, so the city can re-claim the title of the tallest building west of the Mississippi. 

 

 

Ummm what sort of websites were you browsing right before you came up with this?

H-Town Man...a little Hines fanboy, huh?

 

More like I'd rather see a 48 story tower designed by a major architect than a 21 story/9 level garage tower designed by nobody.

It's on.

 

How about British-AMerican Onshore COmpany and call it BAMOCO

 

Chicago gave you AMOCO... This fall, Houston is bringing you BAMOCO.

 

Since it's their AMerican Onshore COmpany, they should call it AMOCO. I just came up with that.

This is the problem with historical preservation. There's simply no consensus about equal architectural standards across times and styles to establish much greater good for the community. You like "southern plantations", I like shipping containers and Brutalism. To me, this is a typical example of southern neo-georgian and with Courtland Place in such close proximity AND urban town-homes across the street it was a good candidate for boundary-edge architecture. To me, we should not preserve anything younger than 100 years unless it was a public bldg that was meant to last. And some things are built to last and other things are to raise the new generation in. The standards are determined by the precision in scale of the drawings exacted to the finishes. A hundred year bldg is exacted to the 1/64" precision; a fifty year bldg to 1/32", etc.

I say live and let live on this one; 10 to 15 family units will be getting a new home in the heart of Montrose. I guess that means nothing to people who want to be able to drive around the city and gawk at houses like they are museum pieces.

No absolute consensus, but there is broad and overlapping consensus. For example, in New York City, people who cherish the Seagram building probably don't love Grand Central Station and vice versa, but both groups can agree that the other building is valuable to those who value it, and thus support each other in preserving both.

I'm not seeing British influence here at all. More like Southern Colonial Revival - very typical for the period. I love the sleeping porch. Anyway very elegant. I'll be sorry to see it go.

There is the idea of natural rights like life, liberty and the pursuit etc. that we might presume to pre-exist in a moral sense and which we all share. However, I don't think "property rights" are considered to fall within that category. Property and other legal rights are defined and extended by the legal system; they don't have any independent free-floating pre-existence. In other words, property rights are what the law says they are - no more and no less - and it is very rare that property rights are unconstrained to the point where it is a given that owners can do whatever they wish with real property. I always find it odd when people conjure up "rights" that don't exist in law.

Well, there is a British-American tradition wherein property rights are fundamental to civil society; John Locke is the most famous exponent of it, and it has been important in staving off oppression in ways that people in continental Europe and elsewhere did not enjoy. Jefferson's "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" originated from Locke's "life, liberty, and the right to own property."

That being said, property rights have seldom been seen as absolute, and historic preservation laws have a long history within this tradition.

Not bad for Westchase, looks like they actually hired an architect for these. Makes you think what might have been for Philips 66.

So do we have Texas Eastern to blame for destroying east downtown's neighborhood fabric, or was it the more organic forces of parking demand and owners not wanting structures to pay taxes on?

 

This pic alone tells why the Exxon building should be left as-is, or renovated more lightly than the proposed steroid renovation.

 

Thanks. It's awesome going to see how much this area changes.... especially where it's come from

 

 

Keep in mind this picture was taken right after the great car blizzard of 1982, when downtown was just blanketed in cars, a disaster from which we are still recovering.

 

Also interesting in this picture - the Medical Arts building is still standing (where 6 HC is going to be), Union Station could still receive trains, and the Annunciation Catholic Church school had not yet received its extreme 80's makeover.

 

They're moving faster. Two floors last week instead of one. Should be gone by May at this pace.

 

Why would anyone ever think it's OK to tell a property owner that the rest of society has more right to that property than the owner? That's just vile.

 

 

I guess you should have bought it.....otherwise, why should you (or an ordinance) have a say in what an owner can or can't do to their property

 

This discussion has been had plenty of times on here. The fact is we have established in this country that such laws are constitutional, and if people are still backward enough to tear houses like this down, I say full steam ahead.

So I saw a tweet from 'going up city' asking a cre person if this was a race to go up against Hines tower... Does anyone think it's one or the other, not both?

 

If that is true, then we should all do a sit-in to delay 6HC until Hines can get started.

 

It was fake British architecture when it was built and it'll be fake British architecture in the roll off.

Actually it's just architecture, with British influences. And the British architecture has classical influences. Pretty much all architecture has influences from some earlier style.

That something as barbaric as this can happen shows that our preservation laws aren't strong enough. We need a landmark ordinance that can preserve buildings without owner consent. It's nice to think that you can trust people to save beautiful buildings that make the whole city better, but you just can't.

 

The massing of the top floors seems off, like the garden recess should have been a couple of floors lower in relation to the rest of the building (BG Group Place did this better). I'm guessing they don't plan on putting any office space above the recessed area, and that is why they couldn't make the top thicker, but it seems flimsy. Also don't like how the "tongue" projects out of the facade, although maybe it will have a transparent floor there like the Sears Tower and people can walk out and get goosebumps over the thirty floor drop.

 

It's still a pleasant building overall, but it would really be a shame if it diminishes the chances of any of the others being built.

 

 

 

Agreed.  However, if I am an assailant with a bat and at least 4' away from whomever I am trying to assail, and they pull out a handgun - I'm going to stop and beg for mercy or run like heck away from there hoping I don't get killed or seriously wounded.

 

I'm not faulting the officer, just saying perhaps a phaser set to stun would have been a better alternative.

 

 

 

Definitely, and if you get shot begging for mercy, it's plain murder. But assailing a cop with a 2x4 sounds like someone has a death wish.

A 2x4 being swung by someone probably does not constitute the use of deadly force.  A knife or another firearm does - unless the perp is not threatening anyone else (eg: holding it to his body or head).

 

I understand there were 2 shots fired!  One struck him in the arm, the other?  Who knows?  I guess if the guy was much bigger than the cop (who was in plain clothes) then perhaps shooting him was required to stop him.  Regardless, I thought this is why HPD started to use tasers?  Seems like a perfect chance to use one from what I've read so far.

 

Swinging a 2x4 seems as deadly as swinging a baseball bat, especially if it was a big person swinging it.  Ever seen Inglorious Basterds?  If I'm a cop and someone's swinging that at me, I am pulling out the first human-stopping tool that my hand finds, be it taser or pistol.  Maybe pistol just to be safe.  The human skull is only so strong.

Here's the rumors I've been able to cobble together, take with a grain of salt. This is like fourth hand, so could have lots of inaccuracies:

 

A guy in a trenchcoat went into the Starbucks, stole two bags of coffee, and ran. Cops ordered him to stop. He didn't, and the cops opened fire.

 

They shot a guy running away with two bags of coffee?  I hope that is not true.

 

Ok, they do shop, but not enough for the stores to be profitable. So my overall point is still correct, office workers don't support retail.

 

I could maybe agree if you said "office workers don't support much street-level retail by themselves." Foley's/Macy's did limp along for decades.

 

My point in this thread has been that office workers help support retail, and we shouldn't look at residential numbers by themselves when discussing prospects for retail downtown. Some of those office workers will come down and shop.

 

On a sidenote, someone mentioned lower Manhattan as an example of office workers not supporting retail, but it occurred to me that the mall beneath the World Trade Center was (IIRC) the highest grossing shopping mall in America before its destruction. Of course, it wasn't street level.

Hines loves him some Chilton.

That's actually extremely poor especially for a location of that size. Macy's per store average is right about $30 million. If it's true that they were only doing $17 million, then its not surprising at all that they closed.

Yes, their average is more like 30 million, but that wasn't my point. My point was to contradict fernz' assertion that "they don't shop" and to argue that some retail is possible without rooftops, and that office workers do contribute something. Otherwise, where did the $15 million come from?

But they don't shop, it's been proven. Look at what happened to the shopping center at Houston Center, all their brand-name retailers left. And look at what happened to Foley's. And Houston pavillions couldn't get any retail other than restaurants and entertainment. Retail follows rooftops, it's an old adage, it's tried and true.

 

Macy's had annual sales of either $15 or $17 million, can't remember for sure.

They do contribute, that's why you have all the fast food restaurants in the tunnels. Beyond that, they don't support much more.

 

 

Totally agree with you and that's obviously a huge factor in the retail that exists, but I'm not sure what percentage of workers shop near their job vs. the percentage that shop near their houses. I'm sure that data exists, I just haven't seen it.

 

I think 1/100th of office workers is a pretty conservative estimate for contribution to street level retail. And it will increase as they see more residents walking the streets.