shasta

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.

I'll remember this when I walk out of my office in a few minutes and walk on the brick sidewalk to the corner and wait for the train to pass before crossing the street.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly my point.

What I do think, though, is that Houston is an example of how little real difference is made by the lack of zoning. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With regard to your first sentence, of course you know I never said any such thing.

So?  And people who actually work for a living are happy and optimistic about being here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not about optimism- so am I.... but the people who are trained in this field know that we should expect more from our city from a planning, organization, coordination, design, and aesthetic standpoint. So when people view this city it's laughable. It's hard to explain but the benefits of 'planning' can far outweigh the current condition.

It is going to take peple like you, NJudah, and the rest of the living-working class to take pride in this city to make it better.

I seriously recommend that anyone who is interested in this read about the benefits of urban planning, city beautification, and the like.

Houstonians should demand more after all this is home... refer to my post on the previous page about attitudes toward cities, their growth, and their planning.

Would it be fair to presume that, since nobody (including Shasta) has posted even ONE example, perhaps this is more urban myth than fact?  I wish we could put these myths about the effects of no-zoning to rest. 

Another one that deserves a decent burial is the myth that Houston has high-rise office towers rising next door to single-family residences.  I have previously asked for examples of this phenomenon (which is oft-repeated in the Houston media AND on GlassSteelandSone.com).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Houston 19514, if you believe that Houston is a fine, shining, example of urban planning then that's fine- I respect your opinion. The truth is that most people who "actually" study and do this for a living actually cringe at what could have been and what has become reality for this city. And I'm not even going to go into the environmental implications. Frank Llyoyd Wright once likened our city to an STD- something that grossly grows out of control.

Now back to Montrose- It was originally created as a street car suburb (yes- tracks of mass transit went here) and was named after a town in Scotland. Most of the houses have since been torn down, some renovated, I'm not saying the ecclectic feel of today's "Montrose" is bad - I'm just saying the city has nothing in place to preserve the intended character of urban planning. A lot of hard work goes into trying to create this 'sense of place'

This is evident in Midtown- how can you design with an intention of pedestrian frieldy areas if there is nothing stopping someone from building a CVS that kills all momentum.

All of Houston should not be zoned- only a small portion to preserve the romanticism the area is trying to create. I mean do you think a giant discount furniture store should belong next to the MFA?

Exactly,

Zoning doesn't do anything you said.  Also what you are probably looking for is a historic district.

We would still have the same city with zoning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, so zoning lets you tear down houses -build a gas station and a pawn shop right next to an existing house in the middle of a residential area?

Please educate me???

^^^

LOL

I think one of the things that really defines Houston is how well it's doing without zonning.  I feel it's a badge of honor.

  I think that we are the  fourth largest and have not gone through comprehensive planning like Chicago and Los Angeles did in there early days shows something.  intersection.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some type of zoning would have helped preserve some areas character such as the residential area of Montrose. What could have developed around it would a have been fair game but preserving what was there should have been a priority.

Also don't rest your hat on the "we're the 4th largest city". This is because the city encompasses so many square miles. St. Louis, Philadephia, Boston, Baltimore, and others probably have more people per square mile than Houston.

Oh, and we did have a city plan in the early days it was drawn up by Borden.

City planning/ growth/ development is a funny thing. It's almost as if cities go through different phases. In the early to mid 1800's when America was pushing westward the East Coast (notably New York City) looked for a city to act as a trade route or outpost for their transfer of goods from the Erie Canal, Great lakes and down the Mississippi River- so many Eastern Capitalists from Boston and New York poured money into developing Chicago but their profits and their money came back to the Eastern cities where they put the money earned in Chicago to 'beautify' their cities. This is the same model the British used with Boston and New York centuries before. Chicago has plenty examples of horrible EARLY city planning particularily in it's race relations and public housing. They didn't know how to handle the vast immigration and the Southern influx.

Soon Chicago had a enough loyalty and support for the city that new businessmen made it their goal to 'beautify' their city and they looked for other markets to make money so they could invest their money back in to Chicago- one good example of this was the Chicago and Detroit businessmen that profitted from Los Angeles where land was being speculated and divided at a record pace and most of the early settlers were from the great lakes and America 'heartland' parts of the country where LA was highly promoted. The automobile was advertised as the future and LA's vast train system was replaced with roads.

Soon, albeit still in the process, people in Los Angeles have started caring enough about their city to influence it's growth- it was the first US city with a zoning plan.

This brings us to Houston which in the 60's and 70's was a field day for anyone looking to make a quick buck in the real estate, oil, or banking markets. Zoning and city planning was frowned upon- it was a 'true' anything goes, western frontier. After all the market will establish what the city will look like. And so they built our city- but their intention never was to contribute toward the urban fabric, beauty, or charm, of the city as Hermann, Rice, and others had done. It was to make money which they invested back into their original cities. This is even evident by some of Houston's own developers who replaced downtown residences, churches, and meeting places with landmark skyscrappers named after companies( some who are headquartered here and some not). The truth is that these skyscrappers are what killed downtown which in the 50's was truly the heart of the city, the refineries polluted our waters, and the automobile rendered our city as it is.

The question is:

Has Houston reached the phase where more people care about 'beautifying' the city and are willing to resist development that might make money but does not contribute toward the well being of the city.

So far the answer is No but I think we are in the right direction.

Am I correct in interpreting the new plan as having NO CONNECTIONS to either of the airports (Bush or Hobby)?

This should be a priority.

Texas seceded and then fought a war to stay out of Mexico.  Went for a while as its own country and later became a state in the United States.  So no Texas is not part of Mexico.

California, New Mexico, etc.. were taken by the US during the Mexican American War.  This was caused because of the annexation of Texas, which the Mexican government had never fully accepted.  I'd have to check, but I am pretty sure Mexico was payed for them.  Maybe not all that much.  But they are part of the United States.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, a brief history.

I believe Tejas was part of another mexican state (Chihuahua) at this time because it was barely occupied by Mexicans at all. they did not care about it. They were clustered around a few cities (San Antonio, Golliad, and some others). American immigrants (mostly from Tennesee) started to settle in many parts of Texas and eventually outnumbered the native Mexicans (Tejanos) something like 8 to 1 to 12 to 1. The Mexicans then decided to 'jerk' around the Americans and Austin in particular and the Americans figured 'hey we have established more roots here then the Mexicans so let's figt for it'. So they did and WON.

Texas became an independent country THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS, and was internationally recognized as such. The boundaries were far greater then they were today extending into Oklahoma, Colorado, and possibly parts of Idaho. It is the only sovereign nation annexed into the United States- but I don't know of any special privelages.

USA then fought Mexico to establish the Rio Grande border, and I guess they also gained the SouthWest states during this time.

I do know when they suceeded from the Union during the Civil War, Sam Houston was the only southern governor to refuse to suceed- so they kicked him out of office and suceeded anyway but I don't think it was legal. They United States made us come back so that would diffuse the "special privelages" theory. They sent in troops from Ohio during the reconstruction era.

Hope that helps.

The Spring area might be a good compromise between downtown and Tomball. It is in North/Northwest Houston (20 miles from the CBD) and there are many nice neighborhoods including some along Cypresswood Drive. This seems like a better solution as Katy wouldn't be convenient for either of you.

Shasta, your post proves the city does not know what it wants.

Sheesh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MidtownCoog, just curious have you been to any of the meetings or have you visited the website? Or is this whole thread based on speculation and hersey?

The city wants the people of Houston to come up with about 20 activities from which the designers will formulate a program and then a design.

If you have any ideas, now would be the time to have your voice heard.

The website is www.houstondowntownpark.org

First off the city specifically said- they don't want another Millenium Park- price overuns, random designs, bad planning, etc. I have been to Millenium park and it is nice but they are hoping for something better more united.

What Houston is looking for, which also confused me at first, is not a "park" but an "urban space" with vendors, cafe's, attractions, etc. plus greenery, ponds, fountains- They want Houstonians to decide what activities will ultimately be included in the "park". It's more like a NY/ European style park, or a a piazza- Houston style, of course, then Memorial or Hermann Park.

If film tributes like this continue, Houston looks like a long shot for being selected to play the role of Bedford Falls in a modern remake of "It's a Wonderful Life."

I got this from the article link- does anyone know what this is about?

I was talking about people from out of town. Almost everyone I know has heard of Austin 6th street, for example, but believe that Houston's night life is dead. I for myself had never been to Main street at night until this weekend but I knew that it is quite active on the weekend although I found it to be even more active than I expected. And you are right, I am still relatively new in Houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, welcome to Houston!

Most people outside of Houston have zero perceptions of anything in Houston.

Houston's Main street is still a surprise.

?????You probably haven't been here all that long. Main Street has been popular since 98'/99' slowed down during the light rail construction and just now is starting to come back around to pre-rail status. Some residential in that area will really help

well that's why we're all different. i have my opinion and you got yours. I think most of the buildings in uptown history resemble modern, sleek architecture, that has a glassy look. Although many of the buildings downtown do have wonderful architecture, some of downtown's buildings look outdated, rusty, and boxy.  If none of you agree with me. So be it! But i'm not going to change the way i feel about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tierwestah, you definetly are entitled to your opinion I am just trying to understand your stance on this issue.

What is 'vibrant' about uptown, do you have any specific examples. You're right it is a high traffic area but what is vibrant other then the huge popularity of the Galleria mall?

So you seriously think it is 'more vibrant, then downtown?

And what are some exmples of 'its great architecture' in your mind. Or do just think that the buildings are shiny with lots of glass- so that must equal great architecture?

Wow, what an animated debate, as a person with an Architecture degree and a native Houstonian I'd thought I'd chime in on some of the member's statements.

First, Professional Hornblower- I do agree with you even if the Galleria/Uptown area is a highly popular area- probably the place where tourists frequent the most. Unfortuanetly this is not a compliment to the Galleria area but a knock on the 'there's nothing to do in Houston' mentality. Largely because we are a city that lacks 'charm' a 'sense of place' any defineable criteria. So I guess the hughe mall will have to do. It's not as reveered as 'the Miracle Mile, 'Rodeo Drive' or 'Fifth Avenue'

true, we have made great strides as a city but we have a small margin for failure. We are not a city with natural landscapes- no mountains, no hills, we are not a water city- This is precisely why we have to be that much smarter in our design (how buildings relate to each other and the neighboorhood, use of vegetaion to our advantage, heat island considerations, transportation/pedestrian connections, etc., etc.) This city has a long history of ignoring almost all of these criteria all of the time.

I do agree with PH that the developers are having a field day with Uptown with these condo towers. My confusion id that the city is practically begging for this type of development downtown and along Main but the developers are interested in the quick buck at the least headache. The same building along Main probably would not be gated, nor would it be solely a condo tower it would probably be mixed use and probably would be a member of the neighborhood, not an island. Plus they are getting awfully close to Memorial Park.

largeTexas- I agree with you, construction activity does not equal good design nor success- Only time can tell. Downtown was from the beginning the 'cultural heart' of the city. It used to be a charming neighborhood with 'church steeples, NOTSUOH festival, shopping, cultural gathering, etc. The uptown was still rice fields

tierwestahi was talking about the overall vibrancy of uptown as a whole for its high end shopping, malls, and tourism(despite lack of pedestrian friendly areas). It has cleaner atmosphere, better architecture (minus Mercer Tower).

I don't agree with this statement. Better Architecture? yes Williams tower is nice but can it stand up alone to decades of styles downtown? From the Esperson, Gulf Building to Pennzoil (NY Times Bldg of the Year), Nations Bank, etc., etc. The shame in most of these buildings is that the new towers cut themselves off from the street- community cemters, restaurants, diners, shops, were replaced with great buildings with restricted use office lobbys- This type of design in the 70's did a lot to kill downtown. Hopefully this time around we can get it right.

And the vibrancy- 60,000 people were downtown to watch the Astros, and Rockets Saturday, 150,000 (est.) come every day for work, and countless others come on weekend nights. We are missing housing and something to create a sense of community downtown, Hopefully the new Downtown Park will help with this (I posted info in this section) as well as the Pavilions, and the other speculative projects.

And for those of you that blame the climate, Mr. X,- that is one of the two answers for bad design/ urban planning. 'Too hot and No Parking' Both can be alleviated by Smart Design- Trees can act as shade, material with low albedo factor can be used, public transportation can be integrated, canopies, etc.. It's hot in Rome, Barcelona, Las Vegas, etc. but people come.

Our best bet as Houstonians, is to take the Renaissance approach where they gradually went in and added charm to pockets of the city- Those dehumanized by the Medeival period. Read up on Paris, they practically started from scratch in the 1800's. I think you get the equivalient to what I'm saying but it is going to be tough in a city where the city government is unable to enforce any plan, the developers can do whatever they like, and Matress Mac is at sainthood status to most Houstonians.

This is right down my ally being a landscape architecture major and all....I'll be sure to email them with some ideas