Luminare

Why can't some people just accept that this world has tradeoffs and to just let that be?

If Memorial City wants to brand themselves as the blue-light district, cool. If you don't like it, don't go there? I instead vote for light wars. Lets do it. Paint the city with different LED lights. Blue light district, Green light district, Red....ish light district (that would be funny). I say have fun. Then on the weekend get out of the concrete coffin and take a short drive into the country and see the best lightshow on earth, the stars. There you go, you have your two cakes. Eat both.

11 hours ago, aachor said:

The impact of a few LED strips is minimal compared to the dozens of square miles of parking lots with unoptimized high-intensity LED lights. If you want to fight light pollution, ensuring that your parking and road lighting isn't also illuminating the moon is a good start. 

However, I think that aggressively fighting light pollution in an urban core is a fool's game. I think the better strategy is to, on a statewide level, champion and promote dark sky preserves and accept that a city has a land use type that is distinct from the Davis Mountains of West Texas. Fortunately for us, the earth's curvature makes isolating light pollution, on a large scale, easier than controlling it at the heart of the nation's fourth largest city.

Lighting at night has historically been about security. That is what lighting at night is for, period. We are so used to a world where cities are lit up at night that we have forgotten that original purpose. Its just a meme at this point with its original meaning lost to history. The side that pushes for controlling light pollution makes way to many assumptions based from a comfortable position and from a position of luxury in a world where lighting in cities has kept them safe. Its not only a fool's game fighting light pollution in an urban core, but its foolish to even propose turning off lights in cities in general. Cities of all shapes and size in every part of the world have been lit by fire then electricity, forever. Light pollution is a "thing" in that where you try to solve one problem you get another.

On 2/6/2023 at 10:18 AM, ErickEdgar said:

Question in reference to the wasted space.

Does anyone know if it would have been more expensive to do 2-3 levels of parking across the property and apartments above, similar to the Urban Genesis projects? It seems like it would have better utilized the space and they could have added more apartments, which means more income.

Yes. Very expensive. PT Slabs are more expensive than slab on grade. You then have to consider the expense of firewalls which a PT partly functions as. While its ideal to do a podium structure to fully integrate the parking instead of just slapping the parking on the side, it is way more expensive than what you see done here. You still have to fire separate the two uses because the parking garage and residential building are different uses code wise, but its again at a cheaper cost.

On 2/5/2023 at 3:15 PM, NB_Brendan said:

So much space wasted on a parking garage :/ 

If you don't like it then push for change at the local level. Bring in leadership who will get rid of some of the worst and strictest parking ordinances in the country. Our parking ordinances is basically defacto zoning, but for cars and not people. If you want a true market in regards to the amount of parking that would be required then change that which would see more flexibility and over time as the market supplies more options then parking will change with what is needed.

People need to realize that the state does not mandate how cities are supposed to organize themselves or even what code they should have. All codes are "adopted" by vote on city councils. All ordinances are voted on by city councils. All parking requirements are a function of ordinances passed by city council. If you want change then affect it at the local level, yet everyone complains about this all the time and do not make the effort to actually change leadership to reflect their wishes, needs, and wants.

Yuck. The front elevation on this one is terrible.

21 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I mean, I'm all for that hypothetical outcome. I'm just skeptical of its likelihood. I'm no more a fan of the left-urbanist strain of nimbyism than I am of any other. But Houston's record on increasing the supply of legitimately affordable housing for the bottom income quintile (citywide) to keep pace with demand - arguably the best such record in the country, mind you, which is not an altogether comforting fact - is mixed at best. Every year it gets harder for low-income people to find affordable housing, but it doesn't get any harder to be low-income.

 

We can pat ourselves on the back all we want for doing better than most other US cities in this regard, but the reality is that any public housing teardown (or online conversation thereabout) is going to spark perfectly valid anxieties among residents (and, to be candid, their teachers). 

Is it an inefficient land use? No doubt. Is it nearly as inefficient, from a public service perspective, as the thousands of acres of surface parking lots and single-use garages and literally empty lots that abound in every corner of this city? No. 

Again, I'm all for densification, and I'm all for increasing the net supply of housing in the city. But I also think there's a tendency here to be a little hasty in sweeping the sometimes devastating personal/individual effects of a project under the rug of a (often not very rigorously hypothesized) net macroeconomic win. 

This is why strangely at this point one should be for a recession and a dramatic move from inflation to deflation. The biggest enemy of low-income working class all the way up to upper-middle class is inflation. If one wants actual home/apartment affordability then real estate needs to plummet, inflation needs to go back to 2% at least, and I would argue into the negative. Crush demand in the market to send prices for all construction products which will make every building cheaper to build and by that make rent cheaper. No matter what anyone does right now its technically impossible to maintain any kind of "low-income" housing during an inflationary period, or when the market is red hot. No government program can fix this, no bureaucracy can fix this, and not even architects can fix this. At this point the only solution is a recession to reset prices across the board. Its bad to say, but its the truth that every knows needs to happen even though everyone is either pretending this isn't how it works or is fighting to make sure they don't get the blame for it.

5 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

What?!  You mean you're not just an evil capitalist trying to stick it to the people?!  Your "plan" could even include additional public housing?!  

This idea that people in rental units, public or subsidized low-income rental housing, etc., have inherent rights that somehow are superior to rights extended to every other renter or property owner is absurd.  No one who rented an apartment at the Lofts at the Ballpark seriously thought that that gave them a right to live there for the rest of their lives at some nominal annual increase in rent versus their original lease, come hell or high water, I'm not sure why people living in public housing should think the same--they already have the rent control and legal rights to reaccommodation, which is more than pretty much everyone else.

as an evil capitalist myself, I want the land to build a large mattressfirm warehouse. Now that is a win-win!

On 2/14/2023 at 1:43 PM, Triton said:

Since the comment period is long passed, I will probably unpin this relatively soon.

Please do!

6 hours ago, cspwal said:

Colorado ski towns are full of roundabouts, and everyone just seems to get them, even though they all are tourists - mostly from texas

Surprisingly, Utah has quite a few roundabouts, and even more surprising, diverging interchanges! Been a fun state to drive, and yes ski towns in both states love their roundabouts especially exiting highways.

On 2/1/2023 at 6:56 AM, 004n063 said:

Anybody have more details about the bridge at the bottom of @hindesky's image?

All I know is that TMC should seriously consider in the coming years relocating their central plants and electric substations. With this project extending the borders of the TMC across the Brays, it makes no sense to keep that northern shore of Brays utilitarian. That land is going to be to valuable in the coming years and it needs to look the part as a way to seamlessly "bridge" between both parts. It will be expensive. I'd say somewhere in the $500M - $1B range to move everything, with the whole process taking 5-10 years, but would be a great investment. Only question is...where do you relocate it?

I've been telling people for years that Near Northside is the next frontier in redevelopment. All that was stopping it was the construction of the Elysian Viaduct, and the reorganization of I-10, the railroads, and San Jacinto. With Elysian fairly complete I'd expect more action this side of town quickly. Looks like a nice project.

2 hours ago, MidCenturyMoldy said:

My first thought was FLW. It sort of has a Robie House meets Meyerland après déluge look to it.

or Unity Temple? Its strikingly similar.

On 1/21/2023 at 5:03 PM, hindesky said:

Is this considered Mid Century Mod or Brutalist architecture? Architect is Mackie and Kamrath, built in 1974. It looks like it could survive a nuclear attack.

http://02db39d.netsolhost.com/citizens/whoswho/business/history26hof.htm

https://www.houstonmod.org/home/big-three-industries/

https://www.houstonmod.org/architect/mackie-and-kamrath/

 

Wow what a cool building and project! I don't know why I've never seen this building before. Mackie and Kamrath were one of the big time firms during Houston's modernist era. Kamrath in particular was heavily influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright's brand of modernism. I can definitely see the inspiration in form, to other Frank Lloyd Wright's works (the capitals on those tall pilasters is a dead give-away). Funny that this was done in the 1970's because this was the heyday of Post-Modernism (or at least its earlier more critical movements, or I call them the "you get it!" movements).

Brutalism is very misunderstood as a movement. Some, particularly laymen, classify it as a Modernist movement, but by all evidence and theoretically it was an early Post-Modernist movement that laid a heavy critique of moderism's use of materials and simplicity. The heavy and stark use of concrete definitely makes this more Brutalist than High Modern, but its a strange blend of both! I think Kamrath never really wanted to go away from Modernism and FLW, but clearly this is an attempt to keep up with the times while maintaining his firms earlier roots and approaches. Really interesting work.

On 1/15/2023 at 10:48 PM, Big E said:

If you actually read the MOU, this crap is so vague, a lawyer could drive a semi through those holes.

Read under the heading "Reducing the NHHIP Footprint during detailed design" on page 35. It doesn't actually commit TxDOT to reducing anything, and in fact gives them so much wiggle room in regards to what they will consider when discussing any potential "reduction" in the footprint, and gives them an all encompassing out in that "any proposals to reduce the Project footprint must not compromise the safety, flooding mitigation, design standards, freight mobility, and evacuation effectiveness", that that section might as well not exist at all.

If I were advising the writing and negotiation of the contract they probably have I would say use that exact same language. Its just like in architecture contracts we are seen in the courts eyes as not having to be perfect. Restrictive language in the reducing footprint context is basically designed to be a poison pill, and they will have to make that a priority over the other elements that are in quotations. If they ignore those elements for the sake of reducing the footprint and something goes wrong then whoever is designing this project, including TXDOT open themselves up to liability. For example if a client wants something in a contract like "the design will be the best and conform to all code requirements" that is basically putting myself in a box. Just like "reducing the footprint" is ambiguous, so is what is "best" and even "all". This puts a burden on the designer to be "perfect" and if you agree to a clause like that and you do anything wrong then you have go outside what is normal and reasonable for your profession. For those that might be angry at the language, put yourself in an architects shoes or an engineers shoes or even TXDOT.

Remember when this project was the one we were all hoping would go up years ago, and now we have all nearly forgot about it? When I noticed this thread again, I was like...oh yeah that one, cool. If you don't mind I'm going to go look at the BIG project some more, bye.

14 hours ago, HOUCAJUN said:

HEB is aware and has this development on their radar based on an Instagram post they responded to during last summer

where they were originally going to put that office tower would make a great spot for a more urban look HEB.

On 10/13/2022 at 8:31 AM, editor said:

I can't say that I know anything about Houston's building codes, but I know that in many cities, once you get over x floors, you're required to build stronger (steel girders, instead of just wood), and have better roofs, and provide elevators, loading docks, larger water and sewer connections, enhanced trash handling, traffic studies, and such.

I expect that five is the mark in Houston for rule changes that add expense.

Here's a good website to check if you are curious about what codes have been adopted by which city:

https://up.codes/codes/houston

I'm actually surprised that Houston is still under the 2015 IBC, for some reason I was sure they were on 2018. My guess is they haven't switch to 2018 or even 2021 due to the increased insulation requirements that have only gotten more stringent as the years have gone on. Also as the years go on the IBC is trying to phase out 2x4 studs at exterior walls (again due to insulation requirements). Houston is already a challenging enough environment to build for due to humidity. Houston is classified under climate zone 2A.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IECC2015/chapter-3-ce-general-requirements

So while you are correct, its technically not really the cities, but the code which is adopted. Cities, for the most part, can adopt whatever version of the building code they want, and can even write their own building codes. You hit a lot of key aspects that are very important. These though aren't the main factors that require a change in overall construction. The primary factors which dictate type of construction is Occupancy, Building Area, Building Height, and whether a building will sprinklered or not. All the other factors are important, but are more secondary rather than primary.

On 10/13/2022 at 9:24 AM, Paco Jones said:

You're correct.  IBC (International Building Code) limits the height of wood framed structures to 5-stories. 

Adding floors results in added mass and wind surface area, which increases lateral forces for seismic and wind loads.  Stronger structure and shear walls are need to increase strength, not to mention (accessibility) adding elevators, (life safety/egress) enclosed exit stairways, and (fire suppression) sprinkler systems throughout.

You ever notice the hundreds of tiny A/C units on the rooftops of some apartments?  That's because the structural dead load limitations.

Actually for your standard (pun unintended) Residential multifamily apartments of this type, its actually 3 stories...if it isn't sprinklered. If you sprinkler the entire building then with this type of construction, which is Type V-B more than likely, then you can get up to 4. Then you get up to 5 by going with a first floor all concrete Type 1A construction. To be quiet honestly a lot of the IBC height limitations are really arbitrary. Over the years data has come to reinforce why they keep these heights due to things like structural forces, but not really at least from my studies and experience. I could be wrong. You are right about the A/C units, but another reason is strictly costs. Design a central mechanical room for a large building like this is incredibly expensive, and the runs you would need to get to every unit would take a lot of ceiling height away to fit plenum, so instead its just easier to go with the individual A/C units.

On 10/12/2022 at 8:37 PM, toxtethogrady said:

Boy, five floors seems to be the, um, standard for a whole lot of these...

On 10/13/2022 at 9:41 AM, Texasota said:

6-7 stories ends up being pretty common as well because you get 5 stories of stick on top of 1-2 stories of concrete podium

What's been explained above are good responses to both of your comments. Thought I'd add in some of my own for further clarification as my last two exams go over a lot of these topics. I just couldn't help myself haha.

@toxtethogrady This is why you see the five floors a lot. Type V-B can only get you so far, but if you add sprinklers (in particular a N13R version) then you can get to 4 stories, and then you need parking right? So throw that under the building right? Well parking garages are a separate occupancy than residential (typically S-2 occupancy) which then technically makes this building a "mixed-use" if you have a mixed use you then need to fire separate the uses, typically you need to a 3 hour separation, well Type 1A (again typically concrete) is enough to get you there, and its why you see a lot of concrete podium (1-2 stories) with 3-4 stories of Type V-B or wood stud construction on top, or if you want the cheaper option its why you see the "Texas Donut" with a parking garage in the middle of a 4 story residential occupancy wrap.

Btw the online version all IBC's are free to view for those that are curious.

https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2015

...its a real page turner haha...please end my pain.

also a good book to further break things down is a book called "Building Codes Illustrated" by Francis D. K. Ching.

51 minutes ago, Johnathanwise41 said:

Can anything be done to push for the work to get finished so the construction mess is cleaned up?

There is nothing any ordinary person can do to either move construction along or clean up the construction mess unless you are directly inconvenienced in some way (you are the owner of the property next door and their delays and messes are directly hindering your business operations). Other than that not a lot available to your average person. I suspect if you were to file a suit you might have it thrown out due to lack of standing alone. None of this is legal advice, and know that I'm not a lawyer.

On 11/30/2022 at 12:15 PM, Paco Jones said:

Until the liens are taken care of I wouldn't expect any work to continue.

 

BTW, Google the owner of Highland Village...

If there are still mechanic liens which still have yet to be resolved then @Johnathanwise41 there are a lot more problems on this job then whether you are personally inconvenienced. This could either be disagreements between the Owner and Contractor, Owner and Architect, Architect and Contractor or all three, or a concern over money. Who knows. There are so many reasons a job can stop out of nowhere.

19 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Is the whole thing going to be that color? Be quite a statement...

Every manufacturer has their "color" for this kind of product you are seeing. What this is is a fluid applied vapor barrier.

17 hours ago, hindesky said:

That's not the final color.

 

So @hindesky is correct. This won't be the final color.

On 1/3/2023 at 1:08 PM, Triton said:

As long as I've been alive, it's been a bipartisan endeavor to throw billions of dollars at a project even if there are overruns. 

 

You're making it sound like the budget is capped. Just because this project overruns, doesn't necessarily mean this affects things elsewhere. There's certainly ways for TXDOT to get more money.

As someone who has worked on government projects (schools), I wouldn't say the budgets are capped, but typically the contract is a GMP, Guaranteed Maximum Price, and budgets can be very tight. In most of these contracts if their are cost overruns those who design it are obligated to redesign to bring the project within budget without compensation. If the client, architect, and contractor are smart they will structure the budget and make sure they factor in inflation, usually is at around 50% completion. 50% completion with this project will be sometime 3-5 years later. So yes if there are project overruns then that DOES mean this affects other things. What is affected depends on how savvy the client, architect (or engineer in this case), and contractor are. Contractors in projects like these take on significant risks because it might be that they will have to take a hit when it comes to their profits if there are cost overruns. With the key material in a project like this being concrete and rebar, and with their being concrete scarcity at the moment, getting that priced correctly will be key from my perspective. TXDOT can't just "get more money". Projects like this even if they are funded by the state pull from allotted funds often set aside years in advance. This funds are more than likely coming from government bonds. I don't see them being able to get more money unless there is a situation like the rebuild of parts of 290 where you had an incompetent contractor who did some terrible work which sent that contractor packing and then they had to rebid.

On 1/3/2023 at 1:43 PM, mattyt36 said:

Well, in fairness, they certainly weren't built into the original projections, by definition.  But the cost overruns were ultimately funded.  Once you start building a billion-dollar project, it typically behooves you to finish.

Budgets are supposed to include projections such as inflation, and with all the moving pieces there should be contingencies. If there are cost overruns then the government will likely have to issue more government bonds. I say this because Texas doesn't have state income taxes to pull from. I don't know if Texas uses property taxes for infrastructure projects. I don't know how much from the gas taxes or sales tax they use for infrastructure projects. Also their have been plenty of really expensive projects that have been started and failed. The ones that get finished are ones that have great or immediate utility, and when voters make sure the government finishes what they started. Not just money.

On 1/3/2023 at 2:32 AM, jadebenn said:

You know with all the inflation and delays this could end up being a pyrrhic victory for TxDOT and the highway supporters. From a very cynical point of view, if you can't kill it, pushing back construction into an era of high federal rates and inflation is a great way to ensure the budgeted funds are absolutely inadequate to proceed with the original plan. A descope by fait accompli, as it were.

I guess TxDOT can be stubborn and try to power through without reducing the project scope at all, but every dollar they'll spend here is a dollar they won't be able to spend elsewhere in the state, and considering the scope of the overruns we're looking at in the construction industry in general... I genuinely don't think a doubling of cost is out of the question.

I thought you brought up a great point with this btw. What is worrying to me is are we at peak inflation or not? We could easily fall into an inflationary decade, but if we have hit peak inflation then this project might actually have some wiggle room in the coming years if inflation gets back within target of 2-3%. Most project projections of inflation are within that range from what I have studied. The part about pushing back the project to the point of killing it I just don't see happening. From a realpolitik lens, there are simply to many vested interests in a project of this scale for it to simply die. As to your last point, it is very easy to see cost overruns on this project, there are clients that could get stubborn and push projects that go over budget, but it still stands that in most construction contracts there has to be an agreement between all parties to up the budget. Usually there are 3 options, either you renegotiate by redesigning the project within budget, keep the same budget but cut costs in areas, or you find money and up the budget. Most go with the first option. I don't know TXDOT's history with big projects like this, but it should be assumed that they will try to redesign or cut costs first before going back to voters for more cash via bonds.

TDLR: OP had a great point. I support the project, but this point is one people should always consider. Budgets often and do have to calculate inflation as a factor of the overall budget because they take years into the future to build. TXDOT doesn't have magic money to move into this project if their are overruns. Yes overruns happen. Yes the Big Dig did run overbudget, but its not as simple a fix as people in response to OP imagine.

3 hours ago, samagon said:

is the noise from that scrap yard a problem after business hours?

for 12 years I lived directly behind a commercial building.

during business hours on a weekday, it was noisy, if I was in the backyard, it was obnoxious, but in the house, windows closed, it was no worse than the freeway noise was in the same house (home was about 750 yards from i45), or the random noises that would echo from the railyard when two trains were connecting with more than a normal level of violence (and always that was at night).

anyway, most of the sound issues from commercial sites are only a problem during normal business hours, and certainly, in a building that is 90 years newer, will do a much better job of filtering out the noise from entering the living spaces. double paned glass, tighter seals for thermal efficiency will also make better sound quality in the home.

Good question. I don't know the yards standard operating hours. Might be a good question for @hindesky

Regardless of whether its during the day or night, its something that should be considered. I will say that while contemporary buildings do naturally have thicker walls due to ever growing insulation requirements due to code, through my studies for my ARE exams, it was interesting to learn about this specific area of building construction. As far as insulation it really depends on what kind of insulation it is and what its made off as far as impact on noise control. When it comes to exterior noise insulation only goes so far. Gypsum board can help. What is underestimated in noise control is one has to remember that each wall material in a wall assembly is nailed or screwed into one another, and like problems with cold or heat transfer the same goes for sound. If everything is bolted, screwed, or nailed to one another the moment noise hits the exterior cladding it starts its way through the various connections and faces of each wall material. This is why insulation and gyp can help, but if there is no air gaps or separation of gyp via metal channels then it won't help much. Its interesting you note windows. Windows literally do nothing to help with sound transmission! Doesn't matter if its double pane, triple pane, etc... or has tighter seals or thermal breaks. Thats great for heat transfer, but not sound. Any opening in a building is an area where you will get the most sound/noise going into a building. Anyway, I'm still learning a bunch on this for my last 2 exams, so I still need to know more, but thought this was an interesting thread on this topic.

On 12/20/2022 at 3:56 PM, hindesky said:

It's super noisy when those grappler track hoes are throwing the scrap around.

 

So in one thread I just recently highlighted the benefits of not having zoning. This is an example where zoning can help.

In jurisdictions where they are trying to develop "brownfield sites" but there is still industrial in the area, or rail lines, or near highways often what would be called for are exterior wall assemblies with buffed up STC ratings. For you laymen out there, STC is an acronym for "Sound Transmission Coefficient". When choosing wall assemblies typically from UL (Underwriters Laboratories) they will typically spec what the STC rating is as well. The higher the STC rating is on a wall assembly the better a wall is at keeping outside sound or sound from other spaces out of another space. So what I'm saying is this can be solved with proper design practice. In this case one would hope that the Architect on the job is aware of the noise in general around the site, as well as the client, and they will make sure to spec, and put in their drawings exterior wall assemblies with high STC ratings in order to reduce sound transmission from operations like the one in the picture. It will be expensive, but if they hope for anyone to live in this building they will need too. I'm sure if one were to do a decibel reading it would be enough to cause stress to the level of which it would impact the well-being of inhabitants. Fingers-crossed they are keeping note of this. I know I would.

On 1/2/2023 at 2:44 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

All of these new towers literally all look the same smh

On 12/30/2022 at 1:37 PM, mattyt36 said:

That's unfortunate, especially given the fact that people are paying for the services.  Also delays the new property getting on the tax rolls.

Ironically, this is why one in Houston should be thankful for no zoning, extensive design commission meetings, and the many back of room meetings developers in most cities have to do to get "buy-in" from city leaders to even convince them to build in the first place. Houston has very little of any of this, otherwise it would take twice as long. I do agree with you though, simply the selfish motivation to increase the tax base as soon as possible should be a reason for Houston and other cities to properly staff these institutions to get these projects out the door as quick, and procedurally correct as possible.