shasta

Wow, I never expected this topic to take this turn but it is interesting to see where people stand. No one is calling for Houston to become so urban that it forces someone in Katy to sell their Hummer and move into high density housing instead of their mcmansion. I'm saying Houston should be a city for everyone. If you prefer to be left alone in the suburbs and decide to commute then that should be an option. If you prefer to live in a self-sufficient urban part of the city then that should be an option as well. Houston should be a city for all.

I'm not saying Houston was ever super urban but almost everyone forgets what Houston looked like pre World War I and II. Let me paint a picture of what Houston used to be like. The heart of the city was no doubt downtown. Many residents lived downtown and even had the opportunity to walk to Union Station to catch a train to spend an afternoon at the beach in Galveston. A few of the Victorian style houses from downtown have been preserved but many also lived in apartment homes and other buildings in the cbd. Street car lines were abundant all along downtown and the charming "street car suburbs" of Montrose and the Heights would allow downtown workers to live in these suburbs and commute to work. In fact, Rice and the MFA were built so far out of the city that many citizens complained that it was not on the street car line. Downtown Houston had many detail oriented building from the turn of the century. Do a little research to see all of the buildings that were demolished but that we would love to have back today. We even had a "Little Germany" section of downtown and the building of the main German meeting hall today is Cabo's. Capital Square and then Market Square was an integral part of downtown and all citizens would flood downtown to catch the latest movie or play or to attend the famous city festival- the 'Notsuoh' carnival and parade that would march down to the bayou. Everyone had to be downtown to see the opening of the new Macy's on Main back then. These are just some examples.

So what makes a city a city- I'd say Culture, History, Memories, and Pride- it's NOT JUST A COLLECTION OF BUILDINGS. This is evident by the city's heart which would be it's center and in most cases where the birth of the city begins. This should be worth saving no matter where you live in the metro. Houston had a good start but chose to destroy and erase all of these elements instead of preserving them. let's compare Houston to Chicago. I'm not saying Chicago is perfect but Houston is actually an older city than Chicago and it was started as a nation's capital city. So what happened?

Simply put- Chicago MADE THE CHOICE to preserve and beautify it's city, culture, and charm and Houston MADE THE CHOICE to destroy its city, culture, and charm.

Many of the detail oriented buildings of the turn of the century were torn down and the residential population was almost forced to decline. The once mighty Market Square is now flanked by surface parking lots where by contrast Chicago was building pocket parks. The street car line that had been a part of this city in some capacity from 1870-1920 and the commuter rail to galveston was replaced with the new concept of 'freeways'. The German district and the Frost Town districts were all but erased from our memories as if they never existed. Even the charm of the street car suburbs of Montrose and the Heights took a hit to some degree. Inhumane office buildings from the 70's and 80's dazzled at the skyline level but sucked the life of the city at the pedestrian street level. The city even turned its back on our Buffalo bayou the blood line of the city and the single most reason for the location of downtown. They honored this historic water way where early cotton bails would be loaded onto ships by hiding the bayou and building a freeway over it.

Would anyone here take pride in bring visitors downtown to show off our historic urban features-downtown residential population, our 100 year plus old German district, our turn of the century and early 20th century architecture or our charming Bayou Garden District along the bayou instead of a freeway? These were all early ingredients and this is what Houston could have been today if it didn't sell out.

All I'm saying is that some damage has been done but Houston controls it's own destiny from this point on and can become a new type of city if it wants to. It's not about following existing models but by following a unique Houston model. Please never forget that Houston was the 'Magnolia City' for 120 years before it ever was the sprawling metro of the 'Space City'.

I'm sure many of you will agree that the Houston pavilions suffered a major blow when the developer decided to pull out the residential portion of this project due to financial reasons. The residential portion would have at least guaranteed that someone would have to been there 24/7 and if reasonably priced may have attracted the type of resident downtown Houston desperately needs. This would have really made this project as a true mixed use center for that side of downtown and created synergy.

Knowing that the residential portion will not be included we have to wonder- How will the Houston Pavilions fare? Will it be an entertainment and restaurant Mecca as envisioned by the developers or will it be Bayou Place South and face sparse crowds at certain hours?

WHY IT WILL SUCCEED

1) Disco Green - This is going to be a blessing for this part of downtown and the day crowd around the park may lead to the night crowd frequenting the Pavilions a few blocks away. The question that remains to be answered will be how consistently will this occur?

2) Metro Rail- The location of the Pavilions is along the rail line and this is a great location for the current line and those heading to the Pavilions from the future rail extensions.

3)Lunch Time Crowd- The lunch time crowd in both the neighboring skyscrapers and the office component of the project will sustain the success of the restaurants at lunch time Monday through Friday. Hopefully, the trend here will not be like almost all of the rest of downtown- restaurants will have limited hours and very short hours on the weekends.

4) Houston House Apartments- News of a developer intending to spruce up the Houston House may be good for the Pavilions. The more reasonably priced housing near this project the better.

5) Future Development- This portion of downtown has plenty of room to grow and if designed intelligently this area could grow into a nice neighborhood and the Pavilions could definitely be a big part of it.

WHY IT WILL FAIL

1)No Residences. As stated before this will have a HUGE impact on the project and having so many people anchored to the project because they lived there would have turned this from a place you visit to a place where you call home. All of the tenants would have benefited from this in some way.

2)Location -Let's face it. the location as it currently stands is not the safest and most inviting spot in downtown.

3) One Park Place -True we are getting a new residential tower in close proximity to the project but I don't think a luxury apartment will have a significant impact on it. I doubt the resident of a second home 6,000 square foot penthouse in downtown Houston would be someone who contributes to the downtown Houston night life of the Pavilions on a frequent basis.

4)Houston Shops- This is a great parallel for the Pavilions. It involves restaurants, retail, is close to many offices and is very busy during the weekday lunch hour but is DEAD come late afternoon. Even the fronts facing the street are dead after 5. Of course the pavilions will have more of an entertainment flavor to it as Bayou Place does but will it be enough?

5) Not enough destination retail.- Do any of the tenants really excite anyone? Some of the restaurant and dining tenants are unique but again the Bayou Place also has unique dining and entertainment options and that has not reshaped that part of downtown as it should.

Of course I would love to see the Houston Pavilions become a huge success, spur development, and fuel an renewed interest in downtown never seen before but I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. What do you guys think?

Well, I know that it's still in the works.

They're thinking about 3-5 years down the line.

Ricco,

Can you give me an update on this project? I heard about it a while back but I haven't heard anything else about its status.

-Does the owner still own this property and is it progressing or is it dead?

-Have they cleared the land or are there buildings on the site?

-Have they hired a prject architect to handle the design development or is it still in the conceptual stage? Idf so -who?

-Is there a definitive time frame for this project?

Any verified details taht you or anyone else could add would be appreciated. This seems like a great project for that location (especially with the planned rail extension) but I haven't seen it in the press as much as the other mixed use urban projects.

Thanks

When is the park scheduled to be open to the public?

Enough with the spine argument, children.

Back on topic:

It looks like not everyone is happy with Hines 47 going up. There's an article in Preservation Magazine lamenting the destruction of the existing buildings.

http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/arch...2007/071607.htm

Has Hines ever cared about Historical or Neighborhood Preservation?

Go back and look what was on the downtown sites where their buildings now stand.

He's pleased with the way Houston has developed but thinks more housing would be good for downtown. "I think dead cities at night are dangerous and cause all kinds of problems and lead to rapid deterioration," he said.

Anyone think this might be a tease as to how the new 47 story downtown building will be designed?

The most that Post Rice can get is $1.77 per square foot for a 1/1 unit that is 733 square feet. Their average lease rate is $1.54 per square foot. Not even close to the rates that are required to justify new highrise residential construction, which is somewhere north of $2.00 per square foot, and at which point, demand really thins out. Also, as of 6/20/07, Post Rice was 92% occupied, down from a peak of 99% in November 2005.

Aside from a few rental units in the Four Seasons that are outrageously priced, the rental units in 917 Main have the highest average ask rates in downtown, at $1.75 per square foot.

I checked last week. I was looking for an apartment and every place that I checked near downtown, midtown, etc was at least 96% occupied. This would justify Camden building a second large complex in midtown because the demand is there. Rice only had two or three 1 bedroom units available in the next 1-2 months. Go check for yourself.

Hines has done residential before- haven't they?

Why can't they do a 47 story mixed use building with retail, residential, and office space? If it's on or close to Main it makes sense to diversify this development. The restaurants/ bars on the ground level of the Rice lofts seem to be holding their own and last I checked the Rice lofts are 98% occupied and the rent is around 1500 a month. There is a demand for housing. Hines really needs to make a splash in downtown with a 'new' type of development for downtown Houston. They really do. The more we can put people in a quality building 24/7 the more there will be a demand for retail, restaurants, and other services in downtown. As great as Pennzoil and Republic/Nations bank are they almost do a disservice at the street level because you are walking past a blank wall that kills any momentum on the street level. We need to create synergy not voids.

In Chicago the city goes one step further and they require that even parking garages contribute by adding retail or restaurants around the perimeter. They require the parking garages to be architectural. We are not Chicago but it would be nice for the developers to think this way because that is what the market demands.

Let's hope Hines learns from the mistakes it made in the past and can build a building that integrates the pedestrian street level instead of destroying it. It is possible to accomplish this and still have a striking skyline presence. Every new building or element in downtown can either help make downtown a neighborhood or detract from it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed because the city is actually putting their money with their mouth is to make this a reality let's hope the big developers get the picture.

It's unfortunate that Hakeem hasn't taken advantage of his opportunities to 'give back to Houston -the city or the University'. He's butted heads with the city many times over his land holding philosophies when he really could have helped make the city better. After all didn't this city provide him the opportunity to transform from a ocscure tall soccer player from Lagos to what he is today. I'm not saying he has to spend to build something for the city but some of his past maneuvers were really not helping the city. Its a free market and if that is what he really wants to do in his heart than we can't argue.

Can someone give me an update on the University Line? What's the latest? Where EXACTLY to they project is it going and when will construction finally begin?

Trammell Crow as late as last week publicly said they were still pursuing the site. Granted that Block 126/98 is the site they're focusing on now, but they continue to keep Ballpark Place on their list of projects.

Well, I just called the number and they didn't really know what to say about the project. I guess they are as clueless

as us.

IMO you're mixing zoning and planning. they aren't the same. most suburban areas aren't against zoning, since many are deed restricted, use is already limited. one thing that would help many older unrestricted areas is that businesses be kept out of residential areas. while it sounds like a simple thing to do, IMO is sure would improve on quality of life.

Of course I'm mixing zoning and planning. I'm trying to say that Houston could come up with a model using a mixture of planning, zoning, tax penalties/ benefits, etc. to steer how the city should evolve. Just because it's zoning doesn't mean it has to be the old model of residential/ commercial/ industrial- we need to use our imagination and not only limit to a type of building but a type of place.

Here's a quick definition of zoning-

zon

I think the problem of "Zoning" vs. "No Zoning" should be a compromise of the benefits of both. I think the city should designate some important parts of the city (i.e downtown, midtown, museum district, med center, Rice, UH, Greenway Plaza, Reliant area, etc.) and come up with a good master plan for growth and what they want these areas to ultimately become via planning, how the tax, and zoning. The rest of the areas of the city should be developed based on a free market- no zoning. I'm including the Galleria/ Uptown area in the non-zoned portion so that it is even. Some will have their planned 'urban core' (downtown) and some will get their market driven 'suburban-urban core' (uptown).

I think this would work because it also wouldn't heavily affect those who live in the suburbs who are primarily against zoning and city interference- the suburbs and outer Houston can continue to grow as normal. With this said I do think it is important for the city to decide NOW what areas would benefit by a plan and zoning and try to secure these areas NOW. I call these areas the 'craddles of culture' but the charm and character of these areas could be lost if we don't try to secure them.

Metro in a way is trying to do this with the land aquisition - they have a vision and despite the relaxed city planning they are trying to make the city better and make more 'sense' for what they are trying to ultimately accomplish. It may be hard to see now but it will be a benefit.

Many think zoning means the city would loose it's creativity by using other models but I think it's the opposite. We could zone Houston for what we want Houston to become.

There are many ways the city could act to implement their plan in these areas but they have to make the decision to direct the growth.

That looks like a great design for that site!!

I always thought that the two most valuable sites downtown are 1) Texas and Main (historic, dense, rail line, close to Minute Maid and the Theater, etc ) and 2) the site at the base of the new park (Discovery Green, GRB, toyota center, hilton, etc.).

I would have to say that based on the renderings -this design understands what it takes to translate the energy of the site and all that is around to the building form.

I really hope they make this building really interactive and busy at the ground level (tv's, plenty of shopping, restaurants, etc). This building could offer alot of potential- offices, hotel, residential?? Who knows what else. Great news for downtown if this happens.

I bet the people doing the Pavilions are going to wish they had included the residential portion because it's going to be a very competitive market as to what part of downtown is the most exciting.

I feel as if the park site really lost some of the momentum in transfering the site with the conservative design but hopefully we will get something downtown for everyones' preference.

I'm 16. I want to go into business, real estate, and architecture once I get into college, though.

I have them narrowed down:

1.USC

2. UGA

3. Houston

4. UCLA

5. Texas

6. GA Tech

7. A&M

Trae, I can only give you a first hand opinion of UH architecture as I went there. At UH I think the two obvious strengths include you would be getting the value of a design school vs. a Construction Mangement type of program but but you also get to use the city of Houston and all of its amenities. Many projects and many studies were directly related to improving the city and certain portions of the city (Museum District, Theater District, downtown district, 3rd Ward, etc.). You are given the opportunity to work directly with the leaders of these districts and it was really an educational experience especially if you are interested in Houston and the future of the city and it's components. Also we would have field trips to landmark buildings and other notable buildings under construction. So location should be a consideration.

Many of my studio professors had positions at notable firms around the city so they also taught what you need to do to move a project along from a business sense as well as an art/architecture sense.

With that said I think the main advantage for UH is its diversity- especially- International Diversity. I met people from literally all around the world, and many professors are from different parts of the world and they bring in different philosophies as well. I've had classmates take studios where they worked on projects as part of an international competition and spent some time understanding the site and city.

With that said, I've worked with some graduates from Texas A&M, Prairie View, Texas Tech, and others but I can't speak intelligently about their programs. Texas A&M is a fine school that is more vocational and less avant garde and I suppose urban design oriented - which is fine if that part of architecture interests you. This is definentely extremely valuable in learning how buildings are put together. The only problem I see with graduates from Texas A&M is that their undergrad program is not accredited so they have a tough time obtaining their license as you need a degree from an acrcedited program to sit for the exam.

Utlimately the decison is yours- at this point try to figure out what is important to you and what you hope to gain and then look for a program that fits. Good luck.

And yet, most of the announced HP tenants have not ever been attracted by the Galleria... So how can you be so sure that nothing downtown could ever attract ESPNZone, Niketown, etc., just because they have not been attracted by the Galleria?

Your entire post can be rather strongly disproven with two words Denver Pavilions

You are entirely true but HOUSTON is not Denver

Denver is actually considered a tourist destination and a 'hot' place to live. Houston is not either of these. Real World selected Denver because it is an exciting place when did they select Houston - they didn't. I've never been to Denver but I am going to guess that more people live in downtown Denver than in Houston. Plus I am going to guess that the tenants of teh Denver Pavilions are because those tenant wanted to be in downtown Denver whereas downtown Houston would be more of a gamble.

I really thought that this project lost almost all of it's character when the residential portion of the project was cancelled. The reason given was that the huricanes inflated construction costs. lame.

I really am excited about what this project represented or could have represented but am worried that in the end this will be another bayou place or park shops because they did not integrate residential with the project. The user group goes from residents and their guests who would view this as their 'neighborhood' to the initial secondary group of....... visitors of the park, the arena, and the 9-5 downtown workers, etc.. Everything is riding on these houstonians who do not live here. We've all have seen how that turns out. Once these people get bored with the pavilions they will look for entertainment elsewhere because there is no attachment.

I cannot strongly stress that the residential component almost had to be a part of this project to be succesfull. With this good....but not great list of tenants I really am worried.

Sure the park tower will add residents to the area but it will not be the same. The residents are not actually a part of the pavilions. What does it take to get a mixed-use project with residential in downtown houston?

Notice in the model sketch that there will also be a proposed 'new student housing' next to the Engineering Complex. This is in line with the UH vision of becoming a livable and educational part of the city. It's refershing to see a section of the city actually have the authority to enforce a master plan and one that would actually guide what is best. What is going on a the University of Houston is very exciting and the rest of the districts in Houston (uh...downtown) should be very interested in what planning can actually accomplish and that coming up with some type of enforcement to what goes up may be beneficial to everyone.

Also, does anyone have the latest information on the University Rail extension? Have they decided how it is going to meet with the campus?

This discussion is very interesting and there are many intelligent viewpoints but maybe shouldn't we open up a new discussion centered around some of these topics?

The question I was looking to have answered is: What is the current status of the Pavilions??? Is it true that the housing component is going to be eliminated because of (cough) a construction material increase due to Katrina??? Couldn't they just wait this out or try to spec more economical materials because of this .

This is obviously a cover up, so, what is really happening with this project? Has anyone found out a real reason why they are drastically changing the scope? We need to try to find specific reasons why this thing is lagging behind and might face the same fate as Ballpark Place and the Shamrock.

Is it REALLY that hard to add housing to the CBD of the nation's 4th largest city? Lesser cities have this done all the time....

As much as I hate to admit it but due to our many mistakes of the past Houston is devoid of culture

Define culture:

I'm talking about how it pertains to the city form and how the brand 'Houston Culture' defines itself and the opportunities we COULD HAVE HAD. I'm not saying Houston doesn't have Culture because it does (and it should be proud) but it doesn't translate into our current city form.

Most of it's early qualities have been erased- downtown used to be the true center of the city a dense mixture of residential/ business/ and entertainment. Gone is the German District of downtown- erased is their contribution whereas New York managed to preserve it's early history- Little Italy district is one of the many examples. Today we are desperately praying that the surface lots of downtown will be redeveloped- there used to be unique buildings on those lots- do a little research you can find them.

Many of the downtown festivals have vanished- We no longer have the ceremonial No-Tsu-Oh festival which used to be the biggest event of Houston culture and one the city identified itself with. New York has managed to preserve it's festivals and traditions. We do have the Rodeo and I really don't care what the rest of the country thinks but I'm glad we are continuing that tradition.

The commuter rail to Galveston that many downtown residents would catch at Union Station was replaced by I-45. Downtown residents no longer have the option of walking to the station to spend a 'afternoon at the beach' and catching a train to be back in time for dinner.

The street cars that used to connect downtown to the 'street car' suburbs of Montrose and the Heights are gone.

The Heights and Montrose have re-created themselves as 'cultural districts' and are among the ones trying to resist total turn-over as but not as they were originally planned.

These are all experiences (plus many more) that citizens remember as defining the cuture of the city. I honestly believe that the new downtown park with the other addtions is going to help GREATLY in creating a sense of place. People will have memories of these activities and and they will be engraved as relating to Houston culture just as going to Coney Island or a Yankees game is for New Yorkers.

You may bash New York City but I can tell you the average New Yorker has no OPINION of Houston, Texas - I know that for a fact.

State your fact. What is it?

I've been to New York many times and always talk up Houston, it's progress and it's good qualities. Most don't really care about Houston -they have NO mental image of it. Maybe this is beacause we haven't created one for them- what....freeways, unplanned development, lack of mixed use districts????

And let's not worry.... Houston does not and will not not be like New York. New York is overpopulated and basically gross. Houston is far more laid back and because we will welcome a new downtown park, doesn't mean we will be anything like a Yankee NY. (thank the gods). Besides, the Bayou City is far more charming than the over-crowded, taxi honking, PATHETIC New York. Kudos to the Bayou City. We rule and always will.

I don't know if you are jealous or insecure or just afraid of what you don't understand but I think we as Houstonians should have more class than to go with the "bash New York City" card.

There are many valuable lessons (both good and bad) to learned from the growth and development of New York City. I can tell you that New York City has something that Houstonians "hope" one day to have - A CULTURE that's distinctly their OWN- one that New Yorkers can identify themselves with and one they are VERY proud of. A culture and spirit that the WHOLE WORLD knows.

As much as I hate to admit it but due to our many mistakes of the past Houston is devoid of culture and was re-organized as a prototypical sunbelt city that erased it's past and early charms and is now scurrying to create a new one.

You may bash New York City but I can tell you the average New Yorker has no OPINION of Houston, Texas - I know that for a fact. They just don't have any desire to care. And as long as we have backward, red neck, minor league aspirations we will continue to be held in so low esteem. People don't make arrangements to visit Houston because it's a charming place -they visit Houston because they have to.

I am a native Houston, and will devote my life to giving Houston some semblage of culture but I don't want to get it by constantly comparing ourselves to others. We need to be and act and consider what is the best action to acheive the 'big picture' and hopefully, if we think this out and make smart decisions- Houston will someday be a magical, charming place. A place that it's citizen's identify with and are proud of and a place where others would dream to visit.

....but in all honesty- we are far from that reality, but we are moving in the right direction and that is all we can do.

There's always been a lot of discussion on this forum about what makes a "world class city" and whether Houston is one, or not. Today I was working on one of HAIF's sister sites, London Architecture .co.uk (*cough* plug *cough*) and came across this masthead from London's official web site:

"working for" (meaning "working toward" in British English) caught my eye.

If LONDON isn't a world class city by now, what is?

It means working for a World Class City as in working for the city and the people of London. I can't imagine a list that wouldn't include London as a world class city.

Here's a local translation example: Reliant Energy- working for the Space City. As in working for the city and people of Houston but not working toward making Houston a 'space' city.

Well, I suppose I see the point you are trying to make.  But, I don't know that it is the city's job (or any city), to actually build the buildings as well as the infrastructure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm well aware of all the work the city has done with the courthouses, GRB, Sports facilities, hotel, etc. etc. Believe I follow all of it,

All I'm saying is that the city would better served if they implemented some kind of plan than gears 'private' development toward their vision instead of the other way around.

What is the point of having a rail line that is capable of serving a number of people efficiently if all you get built along the line are strip centers, gas stations, and vacant lots. (an extreme example of course)

Wouldn't it validate the hard work the city has put in if they could implement a type of development that would 'benefit' the rail line instead of detracting from it. The city could mandate just the type of buildings or they could become really strict and detail style, materials, height, etc. But something is better than nothing.

All I'm trying to say is I wish the city would take control of the future growth of the city instead of being suserviant to the developers whim.

This city is still a 'tabula rusa' -we can still become any type of place that we want but that window is closing fast.

This is the view on my street.

http://www.pbase.com/lwh/image/25786347

Explain to me again how the city has no power to see its visions implemented.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Must I REALLY explain to you how LONG it took to install a light rail system downtown when the city had a rail system all up downtown and a commuter line to Galveston a century ago. Yes, they got it done in time for the Super Bowl, they added the pavers- that's great. The city also hired a number of out of state architecture firms to do a study on the future development alongthe Main Street Corridor- they don't have any authority to implement how any of the land will be developed according to this vision.

The streets are not private property so they can take care of that. But I must say they are starting to flex some of the land use powers with the new urban park/ urban space. I just wish they would go one step further and legally adopt a plan for how the land around the park should be developed as an example.