Luminare

16 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I mean I'm not naive to any of this. I get it's going to take time but I guess it just made me realize how much longer we have to wait for areas of this city to see real change. I also understand this is a NEED for this city. And yeah I'm not excited about this project exceeding 20 years but it is what it is. Thanks

Thats why I asked haha. I don't think you are naïve. You did sound frustrated, and I get that. There is no project more frustrating than a government project. That is for certain!

4 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Wow yeah F that, 20+ years!? And they wouldn't start on the capped park section until 2031. I've been on the fence about this for a while but this schedule just convinced me this is not what we need. 

Its a project worth well over $9 Billion, they still have to get all the land, perform demo, etc... and its one of the busiest highways in the city...yeah its going to take a long time to do this. Should it take 20 years? Probably not. My guess is that this is a very conservative estimate on the timeline. I think most big highway jobs anyway take between 5-10 years, but certainly current economic conditions, inflation, and labor shortages are going to make projections for this very conservative to start off. If we go into a recession, experience deflation, and easing in the labor market then that might help accelerate the timeline. I don't know why now all the sudden this has convinced you that this isn't needed. The whole point of a project like this is that it isn't necessarily about our current needs, but for future needs, and yes that means it won't be finished on the timeline you think it will happen. I'm honestly curious what you thought the timeline would be. If one isn't familiar with civil projects, or timelines for projects of this scale then I can understand why someone might think this is crazy, but it really isn't. Its going to take a long time, lots of traffic, lots of headache, but when else would be a better time? This highway is in the worst shape of any of the other highways. This is the last big highway in Houston that hasn't had a significant rebuild to current standards. Take 290, which took forever. I think that one was 10 years. Its a much better highway now. Last time I was in Houston I was amazed at how quickly you can get from Downtown to Cypress for instance. By the way. If this money were to instead go to train infrastructure it would still take 10-15 years. There are certainly quicker ways to do this, but this is typical government timeline. Take it or leave it.

12 hours ago, astrohip said:

There's a very limited market for high-end condos. The number of potential buyers for multi-million dollar units is very finite. The River Oaks Condos took about four years to sell all 70 units. And we've already seen several "announced" that never came to fruition. It's tough to presale enough to get financing commitment.

Having said that, the resale market is still firm, especially for the smaller, less-expensive high-end units. One & two bedroom units in TRO, going for $2 million and less, get snapped up immediately. The larger and more expensive units take a few months.

Also note that $5 million tag is for the penthouses. The other units are less.

its also a very specialized architecture market. The primary reason for this is that its really difficult to secure the insurance you need as an architect to design/build one. Apparently at one point a bunch of condo projects went south. I still haven't really looked into this. My guess would be in the 1970's or 1980's. This is why I don't scoff at Randall Davis like many here. While I don't particularly like his sense of aesthetics, he's got to be doing something right if he has been able to lock up insurance to even be in the condo market, and to secure clients who are willing to build them. That's incredible consistency to have as an architect. So along with you mentioning what you did in this post, what I've added is a big reason why.

hmm and next to a bunch of European Consulates. Nice move Fertitta. Astros have their Cuban/Dominican pipeline. Rockets will have their Euro pipeline.

4 hours ago, JBTX said:

Do Cityliving and Hindesky follow each other around?

Certainly their drones do. Each jostling for position for that perfect shot. Begun the drone wars has.

So...whats the HAIF over/under we are setting for when the rest of this gets built out? or just the next phase?

18 minutes ago, Montrose1100 said:

Perhaps AIG, Amegy, Crown Castle, BHP, Aliant Group, Brookdale Senior Living, Bechtel, Pros, Nitya Capital, 95% of all high rise Hotels, and countless others fit within a certain realm of an exception. The only thing they all have in common is they're not Downtown.

Can't find the articles but I recall exceptions made to the Hilton Americas & Marriott Marquis Downtown as the city owns the buildings. 

Or it could be that their signs are not over 42' - 6" high and don't take up 25% of the wall. Again it says roof signs prohibited, and it doesn't state where its prohibited. It just says prohibited. If they wanted to say only in Downtown then it would read that, and then you could go to the last chapter in the code which gives you a very very detailed definition of the metes and bonds of Downtown. It doesn't say you can't have wall signs. Its just heavily regulated. I don't like the regulations, but I also don't pretend that my eyes are lying eyes, or the real definition is between the lines. That works in fun conversations with innuendo, but not legal documents.

21 hours ago, Texasota said:

I was genuinely wondering what was taking you so long to correct my imperfect use of "value engineering" Luminare.

From what I've heard, the change in architects was somewhat of a surprise to at least some involved though. Not value engineering in the technical sense, but morally equivalent (just at a much earlier phase in the design process).

I just don't care for broadening of definitions. I already despise value engineering enough, I don't need to hear it too when an architect is replaced or not chosen, or "oh know, the horror" of someone being shocked or angry by a clients decision to "oh the humanity" look out for their own interests.

By definition, definitions are technical...that's what a definition is...

Moral equivalent? As much as I despise value engineering, value engineering is not a moral judgement. Value engineering is a very hard economical judgement. I've never heard a contractor say "we are taking this out because we just don't like you as a person." The relationship between Architect and Contractor has always been frenetic, but if the conversation gets to that point its no longer a disagreement about budget or even architecture, that is just good old fashioned disagreement and misunderstanding. Here's the thing too, that economic judgement is on the Architect, and contractually then have to fix it. I can understand, because architects have a bit of ego, that one might get personally offended at the thought of having to replace one material over another, but just because your feelings are hurt does not mean that value engineering is a "value" judgement on you. So no their isn't a moral equivalent definition of value engineering either.

Surprise? That to me sounds like hubris. Oh we were so confident this architect was going to get the nod, that we didn't even dare consider that the client might actually think different.

Again I actually prefer the original design too, but then again I'm not the client responsible for millions of dollars of investor capital.

46 minutes ago, Twinsanity02 said:

The media is only interested in reporting scandal and ugliness. I tell my students studying to be nurses and medical techs,  about these projects, and not one has heard of them. 

well who needs legacy media when we got dudes like @hindesky @Highrise Tower @cityliving @Urbannizer @Paco Jones @IntheKnowHouston and on and on and on.  What these individuals and many others on this platform do is by far a closer definition to journalism than legacy media. Regular people who are curious and open to all knowledge wherever it might appear, asking questions, and informing the public of what is going on is the path of least resistance to restoring journalism. Alright I'll get off my soap box this morning.

On 4/24/2023 at 3:41 PM, Texasota said:

Actually this is the result of value engineering. Otherwise we would have gotten James Corner's original design.

Maybe the lesson is actually start with best project you possibly can so it stays impressive *even after* being value engineered. 

If this is a relative comparison from one architects design to another architects design then this wouldn't be an example of value engineering. Value engineering is something that is done within a project. My guess is there was an RFP that was passed out long ago so TMC could simply get their head around what is actually possible and would motivate investors to dump money into this facility. There are many large projects by big institutions that do this all the time. The original DNA building was pretty legit, but its entire purpose was to solicit investment. Then they approached an architect that they believed could give them the best bang for their buck, or the buildings that we are seeing built. If compared to the earliest versions of the current design it's pretty close to what was advertise. There were certainly opportunities to value engineering this current version. If done in the schematic design or design development phase then value engineering is in the hands of the architect, and not the contractor. If in the construction document, bidding, or construction administration phases then its "Value Engineering" or what a friend of mine has termed "Quality Abatement."

I think as a whole each institution is doing exactly what they need to do to get things rolling with this. Whoever is managing these projects are great. The amount of chaos and coordination for a project like this is near ridiculous. All happening in tandem. One building clearly was broken down into two phases, but the part that is built can function on its own to get people working while the other half is built. Total craziness. Hats off to the teams for this one.

On 4/24/2023 at 12:05 PM, X.R. said:

This all looks so ridiculously well built. And whats crazy is there is relatively little press about the continued construction despite it A) looking great, GREEN, and massive already and B) moving at a brisk pace. The brisk pace is interesting because it makes me wonder how soon some of the entities are coming on-line since when they do, I can only imagine the deluge of announcements that will come about different ventures and such. You'd think local business coverage would be providing regular updates, but alas, no. I wish there would be more reporting about such a large change to one of Houston's largest business engines. Strange.

This is going to take some time. Nobody gave a crap about SpaceX until they actually flew a rocket that works. We here are a different breed because we not only care about what works, but also why it works, and how it works. When this is finally finished, and research commences, and thousands flock here for training, and research, and this center of gravity starts to pull Houston in a new direction...only then will people take notice. The good thing is that we all here notice, and our investment in knowledge has us at the ground floor while the general public will get on the elevator near the top.

On 4/22/2023 at 10:09 AM, BEES?! said:

Interesting! I can’t remember, but commercial buildings can’t have lighted signage like that in DT, right? I guess that doesn’t apply to residential buildings?

22 hours ago, bookey23 said:

Yes, there is a restriction on buildings having signage in downtown. Maybe this is allowed because it's just the address of the building?

18 hours ago, Moore-to-it said:

wasn't that repealed 

18 hours ago, bookey23 said:

I spoke with Kris Larson a few weeks ago and he told me about the sign restriction, as if it was still in effect. It sounds like he wants to get rid of it tho, so I'm sure if it's not already gone, it will be gone within 5 years

Signage is allowed in downtown, but the priority seems to be for buildings to have ground signs. There are provisions for Wall and Roof signage. This code applies to all of Houston including extraterritorial jurisdiction. One area that I saw is this relevant section in the Houston Sign Code which was published in 7-29-2020. This is Section 4611--On-Premise Signs. Then go to part "i". Section 4611-i says this:

Quote

Additional On-Premise Sign Provisions. Beginning September 1, 2009, and save except for signs erected pursuant to the provisions of Section 4620, the following additional provisions shall apply to new on-premise signs for which an initial permit is requested after said date; provided, however, that in the event of a conflict between these provisions and other provisions of this chapter (except for Section 4620), the more stringent provisions shall control.

Then go to (3). From 4611-i-(3):

Quote

Additional restrictions for roof signs. Roof signs are prohibited.

Then (4). From 4611-i-(4):

Quote

Additional restrictions for wall signs.

a. The area of wall signs shall not exceed in the aggregate 25 percent of the area of the wall on which they are mounted or painted, or 1000 square feet, whichever is smaller.

b. Wall signs may be attached only to buildings devoted exclusively to business purposes; wall signs attached to buildings or other structures not used exclusively in the furtherance of the primary business purpose shall be treated as ground signs. For the purposes of this provision, wall signs on parking garages located on the premises of the business shall be considered for business purposes. Section 4611 59

c. No wall sign may extend above the supporting exterior wall unless mounted on a mansard or facade, and in any event no wall sign may extend more than ten feet above the roof line of the supporting wall.

d. In the central business district the maximum height of a wall sign shall not exceed 42-1/2 feet.

Then (5). From 4611-i-(5):

Quote

Additional restrictions for projecting signs.

a. No projecting sign shall extend above the roof line of the supporting exterior wall.

b. In the central business district the maximum height of a projecting sign shall not exceed 42-1/2 feet.

So to all. It isn't because its downtown, these provisions apply to all of Houston. So due to a provision added to this code in 2009, roof signage is prohibited. Any signs projecting over the roof edge are prohibited. There can be wall signs and projecting signs from the wall, but they are regulated pretty heavily.

There are also restrictions on signage in the IBC, and sections within that code that does restrict signage or in general projections from the wall based on Construction Type.

As for the restrictions based on the Houston Sign Code @bookey23 whomever you talked to you should ask about these additional restrictions that were placed on signage in 2009. You'd be surprised how often city officials don't even know what is in the code itself. Maybe this person does know. Maybe they don't. There are probably other prohibitions or restrictions, but I got other stuff to read then read the entire 126 page document of the Houston Sign Code. Its actually pretty easy to look through code now digitally. Whether its via pdf and the ability to use word searches or simply having experience skimming code sections of any kind. I do encourage anyone with more time to do a deeper dive than I could. All I did with this search was go to a search engine and said "rules against signage on buildings in downtown Houston", using DuckDuckGo, the first link that pops up is the Houston Sign Code pdf.

7 hours ago, hindesky said:

This moment was foretold in the good book, when Moses speaks to the Pharaoh he says "Let my apartment go!"...At least that's what I remember...somebody fact check me. I'm still only on my first cup of coffee in the morning.

1 hour ago, cityliving said:

That looks really ugly with that black covering on the building, not sure why they choose to cover a building like that?

That sheet is mandatory when working with masonry this high up. The sheet helps prevent weather from immediately affecting the masons and the work still left to be finished. It also helps to make sure material, parts of bricks, and mortar don't fly around everywhere off site. The product itself is the cheapest available material for the job.

On 6/10/2022 at 4:14 PM, editor said:

It's remarkable how bad most architecture firms are with their web sites. 

I've worked with a few that built buildings of 80, 90, or 100 stories, but never list them on their web sites.  Meanwhile, they have an entire page gushing about some two-story house because it belongs to the neighbor of one of the partners.

Some seem to get all new web sites each year, right about the time the latest batch of interns is settling in.

This goes to the fact that for a long time the AIA either overtly or covertly established an "ethic" within the discipline that it was taboo to "advertise". This is why the only time you really get to interact with the latest firm work is by going to specific architecture publications, as asking a magazine, journal, or periodical was not seen by the AIA as advertising, but an academic enterprise of "contributing" to the "discussion". The AIA has always been stuffy about this for reasons I could talk about another time, but there is an entire old guard of Boomer, and Gen X architects who were raised within the discipline with this hanging over their heads. Its only been within the past decade or so that the AIA has quietly relinquished this because of threats by younger architects (and I believe lawsuits as well), and the fact that the internet makes it impossible for the AIA to police how architects interact with the body politic, and clients in general. I have a lot of say about the AIA, but again that is discussion for another time.

The other half of this is that architects are not properly educated in business in school. Architects are first taught to almost exclusively think like pure artists all the way until graduation which sets them up for failure in actually treating their work like products that are part of a greater market which can be shown to bring in more clients. This is starting to change again with the internet, but it has a long way to go. Your typical firm Founders, CEO's, Partners, and Principals still don't fully utilize the internet or even advertise and instead default to word of mouth from client to client to client to client. If architects were actually trained in the art of business instead of only being trained to be artists, but who need to see themselves like lawyers? then this would change.

On 6/11/2022 at 6:40 AM, arche_757 said:

There I fixed it for you!

But to your point, yes, architectural websites are often either overly artistic with difficult to figure out graphic interfaces, or they are oddly outdated with regard to projects they feature.  Many firms even seemingly hide their actual work, which is odd, particularly since that IS what an architect does.  First, second and third.  HOK (for example) has oodles of info about some “place making,” or their take on “the future of workplaces” before you can get to what it is they have done.  Some firms even have people listed ahead of projects.

Of course, the target audience isn’t other Architect’s.

Which is why architecture websites seem overly artistic because your old guard has it engrained into them that Architecture is not a profession where you advertise yourself, and instead the website is a digital portfolio to show work that will focus usually on how they present themselves not to clients, but to other architects peers. Most firm websites are not built for finding new clients. They are built to signal who they are to other architects.

@Highrise Tower was going to get to what you posted, but I'll get to that later. Realized as I was typing this that I need to get to work.

On 3/14/2023 at 2:38 PM, hindesky said:

I think the open area orientation on the building is going to face south based on these storm water detention tanks.

South side.

https://novaplas.com.au/products/drainwell/drainwell-stormwater-detention-tanks-soakwells/

 

Hmm interesting. I'll have to bookmark this product for later. Never know when you will need it. Thanks for posting.

@mattyt36

All great points above. 

If someone wants to propose more rail, but doesn't even bother to bring up the fact that federal environmental reviews need to either be drastically reformed, or discarded then that has always been a clue to me that the person doesn't care seriously about the issue at hand, or isn't willing to do what it takes to actually get the job done. Environmental Review is a huge roadblock to getting any rail done because it at minimum adds 1-2 years planning which significantly adds to the cost of any project from day one. All the current giants in rail infrastructure didn't have to do that, and because of environmental review it ensures that any upstart into the market is so encumbered with ridiculous startup costs that it makes the project DOA, and Rail companies have very strong lobbies to keep it this way...huh I wonder why.

I certainly do not trust municipalities at this point construct a proper networks from scratch anyway. The process is too corrupt, the stakeholder process is too corrupt, and the process for generating a network devolves the moment one steps in office from "where do people want to go" to "how can I use this as a carrot to lock up a voter block in my district." Btw, this is politics, and its part of the game, but this doesn't create a transit network that works. Transportation network planning can not be placed at the feet of politicians because they aren't preoccupied everyday about where people need to go, but who is going to vote for them in the next election. You can't put it in a city planners hands because they won't actually take risks because if they do then they lose their cushy government jobs as nearly all city planners are state agents.

Rail was built buy people with vision. People who knew about economics, and peoples wants and needs. Rail was built by wild people who took risks, and were willing to show the way rather than hope their was a way. So why give these types of projects to people who are fundamentally risk adverse? Politicians, city planners, large transportation departments and agencies, and bureaucracies?

Today we have one of those people I was talking about, Elon Musk. But why do we only have one Elon Musk is the real question? If I had venture capital and ideas for transit I certainly wouldn't go to my local government to plead for an alternative...I'd just build the alternative. We have better technology, better economies of scale, better knowledge from past practice, yet we are supposed to be convinced that its actually more expensive today to build rail infrastructure. I mean this is a big problem across all industries is the fact that seemingly everything is getting more and more expensive when everything should be getting cheaper and easier to do. Take current inflation out of the picture for a moment, if everything regarding rail has gotten more expensive, and more tedious, and tougher to start than in an era where they were still placing calls on a telegraph, and hauling materials via covered wagon...then we have bigger problems than just not getting rail off the ground. You eliminate the bloat, and the corruption that has inflated the costs, and you will see reinvestment in the alternative.

On 3/14/2023 at 2:24 PM, hindesky said:

Looks like 3 of the sides of the parking garage will have planter boxes and not the north side which will probably never get any sun. South side has an awning too. Noticed the mock up with different colors of brick on it. I wonder if they changed their minds on the colors

Mock up across the street with the multicolored brick.

Mockup walls aren't just for contractors, they are for architects as well. My guess would be they did part of this mockup as both a proof of concept and a study for the plants, and colors in tandem with daylight and shadow.

44 minutes ago, db650 said:

The most recent document posted by Hindesky appears to be for a 5,289 square foot single family residence. This used to be a condo but perhaps they are changing it to a SFH due to lack of demands. They have been trying to sell this condo for many years.

...it doesn't say single family residential anywhere. Anywhere. I was willing to entertain your idea, but if you are going to double down. Show the evidence. Let me ask you a question, what do you think "private residential" means?

Are you telling me that they lied on the plan review submission? Why does it say in the play review submission "new shell building, apartment" dated feb. 24th? Man "new shell building" and "apartment" definitions have really changed swiftly recently. Now I'm lost. I guess those three story apartment walk-ups I've been drafting were really single-family residential huh? Did they all the sudden within a span of two weeks decided to scrap their previous plans and build a single family home instead...which I have never seen done from my experience in architecture, and submitting projects to cities and looking over planning commission documents.

9 hours ago, 004n063 said:

What makes you say that? I would have assumed that "shell structure" indicates multiple interior structures will be built, no? And "Mimosa Terrace" is a weird "facility name" for a single-family home.

You'd be surprised that even for single family homes you will see names with "LLC" or "Trust" in city documentation. Most of the time this is done for tax purposes. If you want to know how to develop properties and really use money wisely then learn from the wealthy or those with bank who have utilized these practices very effectively.

With that being said its my belief from what I'm seeing its what was shown in the renders and not a single family home. Hey, I could be wrong though. Its a small lot, 5 units at 1000 sqft each with 1 unit taking an entire floor (which is what you see with condo developments...at least I think these are condos). Thats about all I can gain from what has been posted here.

8 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

I looked into this a few years back and to my surprise found that Houston was rather in the lead, at least as to the downtown area where we have no parking requirements.  

Here are just a few quick comparisons I was able to pull up for typical parking requirements (not applicable to special districts in some cases (such as Houston's downtown/midtown/eado).  I'll do more as I find the time; but so far, only Seattle has clearly less stringent parking requirements:

Office:  

• Houston:  2.5/1,000 square feet of GFA
• Dallas:  1/333 Sq ft (3/1000)
• Austin:  1/275 Sq ft. (3.64/1,000)
• Los Angeles:  1/500 Sq Ft (2/1,000) and they require 1/1,000 in their downtown area, where Houston requires zero.
• Seattle:  1/1,000 Sq Ft

Apartments:

• Houston:  1.25/efficiency; 1.333/1 BR; 1.666/2 BR; 2/3 BR+
• Dallas:  1/500 Sq Ft.
• Austin:  1/efficiency; 1.5/1 BR; Larger than 1 BR- 1.5+0.5 per additional BR (so a 2 BR apt requires 2 spaces - 3 Br 2.5 spaces etc)
• Los Angeles: less than 3 habitable rooms (eg. efficiency): 1 space.  3 habitable rooms (typical 1 BR):  1.5 spaces.  More than 3 habitable rooms (typical 2 BR):  2 spaces (and these requirements appear to apply in their downtown area as well)
• Seattle:  1 space per unit (but only 1 for each 2 small efficiency units).

A good overview thus far. One thing of note is that the other cities incorporate these parking minimums into their zoning while Houston has always based parking minimums on ordinances (since of course Houston doesn't have zoning). Many of these other cities are also better at granting variance requests or lessening parking requirements if you trade the city for something else. Typically its with adding bike storage options or finding a site next to transportation options, or adding public space.

We also have to remember that in context with how Houston works geologically Houston's requirements are dumb when you account for the expense it takes to do below grade parking in terrible clay soils. These other cities do not have that problem. Yes its always expensive anywhere, but with Houston's flood problems and clay problems its really difficult to plan under-grade parking with our requirements. Now include the cities push for sites to include water retention on site. Now add in the fact that a lot of Houston property in town are in very small blocks. Houston has some of the smallest average block sizes of the cities you list which makes the parking requirements really difficult and on some sites, impossible depending on the use.

A clear case example of numbers don't always tell the story. Also the difference between knowledge and experience. Its clear you have done some research and have an interest in this, of which I applaud you, but if you talk to anyone in the industry in Houston they will grip about this all the time, and with all factors included it makes Houston's requirements pretty strict (which by the way is why I said "some" of the most stringent...some.) I was being very careful with my words because I know this data too.

6 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Instead of your butthurt rant, how about an explanation how Houston's parking ordinances are some of the worst and strictest in the country  and maybe some examples of  how other cities do it.

Last I looked, you called me out, and said I was false. Yet you didn't bring any evidence either. If you are saying I'm false then you probably know exactly what you are talking about right? You didn't say I was overselling this, or using hyperbole. You said plainly that I was false. I'm more than willing to let you fall on this sword, and have no obligation to do anything. Plus you really aren't very good at inferring emotion from how text is worded do you? I don't know anyone who would look at what I said as butthurt. Before you go around claiming people are false for what they say YOU need to bring the evidence. The accessor is the one responsible for making the case. I'll gladly present evidence once you prove/present your case first. How's that? Please do the honors my accessor. State your case since you are the bold one here.

On 2/21/2023 at 3:10 PM, HoustonIsHome said:

I used to walk through that building and the insides look pretty much the same (apart from the furnishings,  flooring and paneling). 

 

Looks like it's a very light renovation on the public areas.  

 

I would imagine most of the work is on floors being converted to units. 

 

I engender there was a fire about a decade ago that burnt out an entire floor. It was an electric fire that started while workers were at work.  Someone's desk just started smoking, .. I'm sure the wiring in the entire building would have to be updated in addition to water upgrades to services each unit.

Would love to get my hands on the original sheets for this one. You would be right about the floors for units. Just to even be code compliant they would have had to rip out everything. From some of the pictures you can see they took everything out all the way to the one-way joist slab. I'm just curious about the finish ceiling height. I don't know what the floor to floor height is, but I'm sure it was fun trying to fit mechanical in while trying to maintain space for a decent ceiling height. I've never been in this building myself when it was used for offices, so from your observation they aren't making any changes in the public areas? Wasn't there a recent renovation to the public areas when this was still used for offices?

2 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I wish they would remove parking minimums for anything inside the Loop. Anything between the Loop and Beltway can continue with parking minimums but also have flexibility to opt in to TOD or WP. 

I agree, and I'm not even an anti-car guy. I'm more of a, the government should have as little interaction with what you do with your property, how you configure it, and what you provide on it as much as humanly possible. That is also the ethos of Houston as a city.

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure the bolded statement is just false.

I mean sure believe what you want I guess. Its not like I ever worked on projects in Houston or anything, or heard clients complain about it, or contractors, or architects, or designers. Yeah totally not the worst or strictest. I mean what do I know. Its not like I work in Architecture or anything...

4 hours ago, astrohip said:

Was that the original design, a couple of three-story buildings? I thought all of them were high-rises, with GFR.

Nonetheless, this is a smart take. Especially not knowing how the market will react to more office space in that area. And there is an ongoing and growing demand, on the consumer level, for more retail & restaurant in this general area.

The two middle blocks next to Buffalo Speedway were always supposed to be 2-3 story retail/office blocks

20 minutes ago, houstontexasjack said:

The ultra-bright parking lot lights don’t really enhance security. An intruder could easily get lost in the glare (try seeing someone when staring at headlights). I miss the orange-glow of old-school sodium vapor lights and wouldn’t mind a return to that spectrum, which is friendlier toward night visions.

Otherwise, as HAIF well knows, I love those LIGHT-UP FEATURES!!!!

(the all-caps said in the voice of the astronaut screaming “SPACESHIP!!” in the “Lego Movie”)

No, they do. That sounds like an opinion, and its one that I agree with, but actually the brighter the better in relation to security especially in tandem with CCTV.

Yes the old filament spectrums of orange and yellows are way better in terms of mood, and feel...well how should I put this its almost like it reminds of us of flames and fire with its warm glow. Its strange its almost like that's been a human constant that we just naturally prefer, and not sterile white light. Funny how that works. I really like LEDs though because they are so flexible, and can be put into anything. I have my computer at home that has blue LED's and especially at night gives off a cool vibe especially up here in Utah on a snowy night. Can't beat that.