HoustonIsHome

This one street is only about 4 floors up so far but it already had a much more conan ding presence in the area. I took pictures, I need to upload them later

Damn, chase makes everything look small

United Continental Tower

I can confirm that United's current space will be Chevron. Their tower won't happen soon

That's exactly what I was fearing

We need more parking garages with GFR and the option to build residential or commercial on top at a later date.

That's what I said and got shot down

Just my two cents, but New Orleans isn't hurting too much for business. It is about where it should be for a metro of its size.

What New Orleans did is preserve a fraction of the stock, and built the business district outside the protected stock. However, even in between the newer skyscrappers are old stock buildings.

The medical center does not look as nice as ours but I do like the aged character and how well it fits in.

I mean even in the quarter, there are hotels that have been renovated/expanded multiple times and in my opinion got even better.

The Hotel Monteleone for example was renovated after the Quarter was protected. They did a lot of demolition, expanded a great deal and ended up with a hotel with one of the most charming facades this side of the Mason Dixon.

Here are pictures of the Monteleone:

https://www.google.com/search?q=hotel+monteleone&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&prmd=mivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUvOWUwZ_LAhVFgYMKHS1LAyAQ_AUICCgC&biw=360&bih=559&dpr=3

Downtown Houston could have protected an area such as Market square and implement regulations that newer buildings/improvements result in a look that matches the area. The east side of downtown and the southern part from pictures never was all that special. The towers could have gone there whole the Vieux Carr preserved.

From a business owner perspective, these garages are important for two groups: Customers and Employees. Each new restaurant, shop and bar that opens is going to draw more folks to the area - and draw them at the same time. Downtown's on-street parking is increasingly tight, and not just during peak nightlife hours. My business leases a dedicated spot, the monthly cost of which has doubled in the past six months. Most of downtown metered parking is only for three hour chunks during the day, which means they aren't an option for someone coming in to work a shift, or to spend the afternoon and evening shopping, dining and drinking. On New Years the surface lots across from my business were charging $20. Its even worse for major events around Minute Maid and Toyota Center. More parking facilities will have a downward pressure on pricing, or at the very least keep it from getting further out of hand.

And that is exactly what I was saying before they jumped on my opinion.

Downtown's need for parking is gong to increase before it levels out and then hopefully decreases.

Let's say downtown had 100,000 lots and 150, 000 workers. Now let's assume 50,000 commute by PT and 100,000 drive. So we are even on parking.

Now, we take 10 surface lots that housed 100 parking spots out of the picture to build residential with 500 space parking garages. On first glance you would say that that is a net gain of 4000 spots as 1000 was lost and 5000 gained, but if you look at it deeper it may end up being a net loss.

Remember those 5000 spots are taken from the public relm that was most probably 0 residential and 100 percent commercial to the exact opposite. Let's face it. People are living downtown and working midtown. People are living downtown and not working at all.

The scenario also doesn't take into account a growth in net downtown workers.

So yes, the parking in downtown have been increasing, but in the last year or two the net change has been more in favor of residential parking. And until downtown becomes more self sufficient the need for these structures will be high.

When it gets to the point where all you need is a short train ride or walk away then we will see a rise in downtown population, a decrease in workers who commute, and an increase in those comfortable enough to live without a car.

This will cause a plateau in construction of new garages and then a decrease. Some may even be demolished and not rebuilt as demand for other uses surpasses that of parking.

The freedom driving gives you though is too tempting to give up. I am very comfortable predicting that the Lions share of residents won't give up driving totally, but the percentage who will will increase greatly in the coming years.

Midtown in the last ten years has just been on fire

Why does it have to be either a glass tower or restoration?

What about another Aris @ Market square?

A mixture of old and new?

A 50 floor mixed use tower that respects the traditional feel of the area to the north but incorporates the newer designs of the buildings to the south.

In a classy way combine the Esperson (I know it is actually a couple blocks south) with Penzoil. But not in a Randall Davis way, more in the Aris way. A traditional feel work a modern award winning twist.

I really do like the view of this building from the west/Travis side. The curve, the landscaping, the plaza. Love it.

I guess it's like they say, good things take time. Skyhouse went up like a bullet but I heard there were a lot of problems. Let's hope this one is structurally sound

When I lived in the area I frequented Sears regularly. The Macys/Foley too.

Would gladly have those types of department stores over stores like H&M and Forever21. Having both clothing and general goods stores are nice, but I would go for the general goods.

A target would fit the bill. Northern Midtown or Southern Downtown would be perfect for a target. Especially if Sears closes and with Macys gone.

Glad to see people still cheerleading the loss of retail in a burgeoning neighborhood, that for now has an abundance of empty lots/ under used space.

Lol, so they just gave up on naming the building?

I like the sign, but that is just so lazy.

Why do people keep saying adding UH and TT to the PUF would be to the detriment of UT and A&M. So let me get this right. The two flagships get 5 percent of the revenue from the landholdings. Is that right?

UT already had more money than it knows what to do with, but anyway what if the PUF dispersement is increased to to 8 percent and then devided accordingly.

It didn't hurt UT when the other system schools were added so why would it hurt UT if UH was added? Is it because UH and TT are the closes to being Tier one?

40 floors, not on a parking podium, this is awesome for Houston

I think since the redo - Pappas does good business and even is pretty full at night. With the new residents I see them only doing better.

Book store and storage - good riddance. I know a few O&G engineers that get books from that specialized store though I imagine they could just go online?

When I say replaced, I mean the building, not the business. I would love if Pappas would still be there, but in a building that makes better use of the land. Same with the bookstore. A drive through single floor building is such poor land use.

This is so much different from what was there before. Binswanger glass building sends far out of place with the vision for that area. The book store, public storage and that Pappas will hopefully in the next cycle be replaced with something better

If Houston were to have a giant, 1-acre swimming hole/beach/pool, where should it be?

Bump it to 5 to 10 Acres and now we are talking

Still trying to understand just how proximity to a Seaport has anything to do with a research campus.

I am wondering the same thing, but he is passionate in that delusion so I'm going to let him have it

This gets back to my concern with this project. What does the proposed campus mean for TMC3 and UT's participation in same? A turf war between two state schools should not be the deciding factor on whether this goes forward.

Exactly, and I'd you scroll back this has been my concern from the start.

Will this enhance TMC through or fracture and water it down.

TMC has developed to what it is by cooperation between member organization (of which UT is a huge player) from the start I fear that UT doing its own thing might water down TMC expansion and fracture it's might. I would be more at ease if UT'S plans were more adjacent to TMC and more focused on TMC3 first

Saving money on bringing top experts into town, along with shipping precision crafted tools and supplies, doesn't have a lot to do with research?

Transportation is everything when it comes to harnessing brainpower.

No it doesn't, and no it isn't. If transportation was a major player then silicon valley would either be in SF/Oakland or LA/long beach instead of SJ to be closer to the major airports and seaports.

You are making it seem like Austin isn't a short connecting flight from IAH or DFW. Austin isn't all that hard to get to.

In medieval times Geniuses clustered in Alexandria and made lots of discoveries there. Sane thing is happening in Silicon Valley, same is happening in the Research Triangle, same at TMC. A cluster of brainpower seems to be far more important than worrying about bringing expects to town. I would be more apt to locate my research near Stanford that at Port of Oakland or LAX.

I knew something was up when they put out night renderings for astoria

International air and seaports have little to do with research. I'm thinking it has more to do with the brain power of TMC.

Like all these "valleys" innovation tend to come in clusters, and TMC is the strongest congregation of mental will in Texas and maybe the entire south.

If an excuse for the location needs to be had then that would be it.

1. Uptown is huge

2. The skyhouse garage doesn't seem as depressing here as the ones downtown.

3. That target sho takes up a lot of space

All these new complexes and it's still getting harder to find a cheap complex inside the beltway.

Ah the under $500 days for a descent complex is gone.