HoustonIsHome

I wouldn't say the same but they do resemble each other. Walking around disturb you do see many buildings that do resemble each other. It is just the period that they were built. There are a few Cotton exchange era building, there are a few that resemble the Rice Hotel architecture, the Texas Tower (609 main) looked similar to others etc. Every tower cannot be a signature tower. There are only so many things you can do to stand out. But I agree with you. Handsome buildings but this one, Block 98 And Hines resemble each other

Nice. I love the shot of Travis looking north. I didn't like the shot of MS looking south down Travis. I dunno but from that angle it doesn't look like it blends as well as the earlier rendering suggested. But I love this building. It is murdering an open scar It is bringing residential to an up an coming area It has retail where people can see it. It is easily the rendering with the least four me to pick at.

I'm mixed on all these SW Houston developments. Those are mainly awesome projects that are going to completely transform the area BUT to be honest when I think of Text book definition of Houston I think of that area west of post oak, south of Briar forest, N of Beechnut and east of gessner. I say that it is a textbook definition because it encompasses a wide variety of people and Houston is known for its diversity. The inner loop has the hispanic east, black southeast and northeast and the white west side. I think the mix found in the southwest created the wonderful diversity of stires and restaurants that made the area great. My worry is that in typical houston fashion we will try to gentrify the entire city and in so doing stamp out the character differences of the city. Now I wouldn't mind if all that was happening in the sw was aging complexes being replaced by New ones. But even in stretchy areas of the SW, pricey complexes are going up. I may sound like a broken record on this but it would be nice if the gentrification occurred in areas that have already lost its soul (midtown, downtown, east downtown). 5th ward and 3rd ward needs some work too

All the sprawl that I see on the fringes of Houston and San Antonio includes more shopping options than the inner 25 sq miles of either city. There isn't the critical mass dynamic that the residential initiative is trying to create. You see it it all the time; even a modest store can barely survive downtown yet a super walmart will pop up near a brand new platted subdivision.I stand by point. These amenities are easy to go up in these areas and people want amenities. Its silly to leave the core and travel out to avail yourself of amenities. As for the person who asked if anyone would live above a store, I definitely would. I like the convenience of being driven but hate driving myself, so to me living over stores would probably be higher on my list than having a personal chauffeur. Anyway, its not like core is inundated with these mega stores. There are zero superwalmarts in the loop (there are about three regular ones). Travelling between The loop and spring however there are 8 superwalmarts and a handful of smaller ones in a five mile radius of 45. Strip malls on the other hand we could cut down

Exactly. If we were more concerned about the empty lots and left the lots with amenities already on them alone, the city would be a much better looking place. Knock out the targets and the Lowes and they just move further west and north. And guess who moves with them? THE PEOPLE. Leaving you precious land available for towers but no life. Yes those parking lots take up a lot of space, but so do empty lots, which we have in abundance

I don't think the mileage matters. Its getting people on the thing that is the problem. My issues are: 1. Will more people ride it than the park and rides? 2. How much more than the park and ride buses would it cost the riders 3. Would a higher cost scare off riders My cousin lives about 40 miles north east of London (about 10 miles outside the metro). The town has about 60,000 people but it is only about 4 sq miles. Between that town and the london metro there are mainly fields and about 4 or five smaller towns with between 15k and 25k people. All these towns were served by the commuter rail and it is highly successful because all these towns were about a mile across and surrounded by fields. In all these towns you could walk to the stations. I cannot think of one burb in Houston that more than a meager percentage of the population would be able to do that. To be honest I would have two lines along westheimer. One with a zillion stops and one a commuter rail connecting Montrose, uptown and Hilcroft. I would try my best to replace taxed bus systems by rail and improve the bus systems in others. The burbs I would let create their own system and if they survive they survive, if the people don't want it then so be it. I don't even think a commuter rail system to the airports at this juncture would be fruitful. The designated airport buses were a major failure and the regular city buses to the airport for now are adequate. Not fancy but hey if we cared what visitors thought of us we would be a whole other city

Food deserts are certainly not a fad and IS something to be entertained. If we want to beef up downtown we got to beef up the close in neighborhoods. We can't beef them up if it is inconvenient for people to live there. As it currently is, the near north, 5th ward, downtown, east downtown, midtown, thirdward, Binz, TMC are all food deserts We are trying to get people to live in those areas and use public transit. When you have to take a 30 min bus trip to get some eggs you might as well stay on 1960

I've always loved the bayous. I have spent countless hours walking along Brays, White Oak, Greens and Buffalo Bayous. I have lived in two areas where I could walk out my door and see the bayou. Living near such a park is scary but so rewarding when it doesn't flood I am so excited about the buffalo bayou improvements and cant wait to see the later phases of development. Great resource for the city

I think the better question is whether a comprehensive system would work here. Cost aside just about everyone would agree that a subway line is possible. But how about a complete system with urban rail and commuter feeder lines. I'm ask for rail, but I don't think we will ever have comprehensive urban rail and I think commuter rail lines will only be an expensive mess. I would ride it everyday, an all for it, but I don't think it will be successful.

Because the public transportation in Pearland is zero an extension among 288 would be just an expensive park an ride. Huge parking lots would have to be built and prior would still have to drive miles to board the rail. I do admit it would probably ease some of traffic on 288 (like the TMC park and ride the rail set up) but something tells me it won't have that big of an effect.

Does this remind anyone of a certain vacant northern midtown building?

I think a lot of you on both sides are making lots of loose associations. One factor usually doesn't prove or disprove a point on its own. I could understand if downtown, midtown, TMC, and Reliant City were all filled with amenities, cheap land and few building regulations and the rail came in and only sluggish residential growth occurred. THEN, I could say that rail is not much of a factor in building density. I think that looking at the four main areas that the rail went through gives more insight than comparing the entire length of the rail to nothing or to cities with a totally different set up. 1. RELIANT PARK/ SMITHLANDS AREA amenities: Target FIESTA HEB Lots of restaurants Lots of strip centers Sizeable pre-existing residential population 2. DOWNTOWN/Midtown Large employment center Excellent preexisting transportation via bus Excellent dining and entertainment options Poor access to major grocery stores Small preexisting residential population TMC Huge employment/ student base Non existent residential population Non existent grocery options Almost non existent retail Poor dining availability Looking at the list above it is no wonder that the lower portions of the rail took off right away. The land was the cheapest of the 4 main areas, it was filled with stores, groceries and restaurants and the area had a sizeable residential population so didn't shut down at five. Midtown and downtown are catching up now cause they had to build up to what Reliant already had. People need creature comforts and just throwing up a rail in lonely areas is certainly not a big enough draw. TMC is built out. It has done if the highest ridership numbers, but too late now for residents. I see tons more high density residences going up around TMC though. The new lines are in an interesting situation. The land is cheaper than Downtown/Midtown but they are still low on groceries/retail like midtown. The reason why a line to uptown is believed would be widely successful is that it combines all the plusses of the areas the original line went through without many of the minuses. By far the largest portion of the population lives in the SW part of town. That area had just about any type of grocery store or retail you can think of. Public transport is already highly used. A lot of the old housing stock is being replaced with higher density housing. Anyway my point is that you can't put rail in an area where people don't want to live and when people don't flock there say that rail doesnt help with density. Until midtown/ downtown gains amenities or the rail heads west, we won't have a glimse of a full potential Houston rail system as something would always still be missing

I hate it! Looks like the projects. Projects for hippies.

If the city was sneaky they would get together with metro and other grps and have huge but cheap parking out of downtown and force people on to the rails to boost ridership.

I think this is a better alignment than the Hilton top floor pool. At the Hilton you have great views on the westside but the south and east side is bla, and you have no view of the north/ discogreen side. I would rather overlook the park than the roof of the Toyota center anyday

Skylight? Isnt this deck in the middle of the building?

It's no different from the restaurants that you pick out the lobster you want for dinner. Lol you are eating and enjoying the sealife, but at least you are but eating the actual sealife in the tanks

You need all that calculation and can't up with the same theory that I did. 25.8 units x 12 floors = 309 units per lot or 618 total units. MORE THAN ENOUGH. That extra math only served to give me head ache. Fact of the matter is two 12 story buildings, Or a 12 and a 10 is more than enough to house the proposed 580 units Either way it is moot now. Urbanizer verified. So the discussion now is are they changing the building style to occupy more of a skyhouse mold or are they gonna offer palatial sized units. At 21 floors that comes out to less than 14 units per floor per lot. That is a third of alliance

That doesn't say much as the others are not urban at all

I think you guys are confusing the half or quarter lot buildings like skyhouse or block 98 with the full lit buildings like this 500 Crawford or alliance. Perspective: 500 Crawford is half the floor count and is slated to house 397 units that is about 56/57 units per floor for the two block project. Alliance has 207 over 5 floors which confess to about 40 units per floor per block. Using 500 Crawford would be the more closely alligned situation we get 672 units when we multiply by 56 by 12. Using Alliance we get (40 x 12) = 480 per building or way more than needed when you take into account the second building. So yeah, unless they completely change up the rendering, the 21 floor figure should be a typo. 12 floors is more than enough to house 580 units if the entire lot is taken up

Houston is ridiculous. The spread of heavy traffic is unbelievable. I mean 1960 for example is about 20 miles away from downtown (fringe in most other cities) and the street is packed with cars all day. The odd thing is all the really bad traffic areas are outside the core. Really odd city

Would be awesome if the pool had a glass front

I know what he meant, but sheesh the neighboring building not being one of the prettiest seems so petty to me. A lot of corporate offices in new York and Chicago butt up against dank and grey neighbors. To me the percentage of ugly stock in new York is far higher than Houston. For every Chrysler there are like 20 Days in. Oil company workers seem to be highly spoiled

Tolerant? That is stupid. They are supposed to spend the day working not gazing out the window lamenting on the aesthetics of neighboring buildings. Its a freaking building not a factory emitting noxious gases.

Building an oasis in the desert from scratch is hard to do. Uptown is not very pedestrian oriented to begin with so only baby steps can be made to direct the area towards a more pedestrian friendly area. To big a change would be risky as it might mean the access issues may result in a failed enterprise. For now the parking is necessary.