firstngoal

Wow... did anyone notice that the Dallas/Fort Worth area already has 4 Nordstrom locations?... with a fifth on the way.

Austin - with a quarter of the population of Houston - already has one with another coming to the Domain project.

I find it really surprising that they have not announced another location in Houston... with its 5.5 million people and strong income growth in recent years. I really like Nordstrom stores... and am sickened by Macy's killing the Foley's and Marshall Field's names. Whatever mall gets a new Nordstrom location in the Houston area - whether it be existing or new - will undoubtedly benefit.

I've never understood the objections people have to illuminated skylines in Houston. Would Las Vegas get half as many pictures of its hotels if they weren't lit up? No. You'd see generic pictures of the inside of gambling halls that look like the casino brochures from Macau, Vienna, London, or anywhere else.

Houston's skyline is stunning -- but only from select angles (Eleanor Tinsley park being the best example). Even today, some of the publicity photos I see of Houston are of the skyline lit up from the old Power of Houston days.

I think there's a way to accomplish both goals -- light up the sky, but still be tasteful. There has to be some middle ground.

I think you are dead on. I don't live in Houston any longer, but get back often on business. I'm always amazed at how dull and lackluster the skyline appears at night... especially in comparison to cities with skylines that aren't nearly as impressive. I saw the Rockets game, too... and the shots in front of the Aquarium were lame-o. It looked like Lake Charles!... not America's 4th largest city.

Regarding the energy argument... it find it amusing - and a little strange - that cities that tout themselves as "green" and progressive, such as Austin, Portland, and Seattle (where I currently live), have well-lit, beautiful skylines at night... while Houston, a city which consumes more energy than just about any other American city - and where air conditioners whirl 24 hours a day - can't seem to find the will or the leadership to market their skyline (which is really the city's most exciting visual element) at night. Billboards, furniture warehouses, and strip clubs light up the night sky much more than Houston's skyline... if people are concerned about lights drowning out the stars, start by eliminating that kind of light-blight first....

Hell, even if the owners of the Bank of America Tower would light up the setbacks of their building at night, the skyline would look 100% better! Oh, and would someone please unplug those cheap looking white Christmas lights on top of the Chase Tower and the Houston Center buildings??... that looks positively sad.

And a derelict, abandoned old warehouse that flooded out occaisionally was somehow less cold? I'll tell you what adds warmth to a building: use.

I'm not impressed by Portland. Hence I don't live there.

You seem not to be capable of dealing very effectively with loss, but it is a necessary component of gain. What would a city look like if nothing were ever demolished? Or destroyed by fire or other means (and I mention this because if cities wouldn't allow demolition, many property owners would find other ways to do the job). Cities of several million people don't just pop up overnight. They grow slowly over the span of centuries. The lowest-density urban development occurs first, and it occurs in the area that will be the future central business district. In the span of a couple hundred years, what is there initially will be razed, rebuilt, then razed and rebuilt again. But if demolition isn't allowed, and development comes incrementally, then you've just made it so that every time something new needs to be built, it'll be built at the urban boundary, where there is developable land. Think about that kind of city. Is that a place that you'd want to live in? Not me.

This is just a warehouse, one like so many before it that have come and gone. Life goes on.

There is no need to comment on my ability to deal with architectural loss... c'mon, when you live in Houston, it is a constant. And I did mention that these were selfish feelings.... take me at face value when I say that.

We have totally different views on this. Clearly places I cherish you could care less about. Things I view as cold you view as useful and important. What I view as a negative you view as a positive. Period.... and absolutely fine.

Michael Barry, Sekula Gibbs (bye), Carol Alvarado, et al have no clue about saving anything.

Our best hope is Mr. Peter Brown. At least he seems to get it, but until we quit electing losers nothing will change.

(This rant not inspired by this derelect warehouse, but lack of preservation in general)

And don't even get me started on Mayor "topic de jour" White.

Dead on. The lack of even the concept - or importance -of even minimal forms of preservation laws is what gets my ire up. The warehouse is - like all the other buildings on Allen Parkway I mentioned - just another example.

Calm down, dude. Insofar as the building has been thoroughly documented and was important enough for people to remember, history has not been destroyed. Only created and expanded upon.

Life goes on.

You are right about that. Life does go on... and in Houston, that means the same old wiping away of any history we ever had. I think I am entitled to express my feelings - as I was born and raised in H-town (in Montrose, in fact) - to show a little disgust and frustration that the places that are special to me have largely been destroyed to make away for mundane, if not remarkably cold, architecture (as are all of the examples I gave on Allen Parkway). Having a special place documented on paper (and, are you entirely sure about that?) or photographed for posterity brings me absolutely no comfort.

And I am so tired of the consolation we talk ourselves into... "oh, we may have lost a historic building... but look what we are getting instead!" Can we not have both?? Uhhh, sure we can.... take a look at this example.

http://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?loc=57&id=465

Alas, we don't have the resolve - or the creativity - in our community to make projects like this one in Portland work. Forgive my rant.... I know what I am saying - esp. to The Niche - is the rambling argument of a sentimental preservationist in a city where only the rich and powerful survive. Survival of the richest in a way... our way or the highway. Well, maybe so... and I now live in Seattle where I can enjoy the history of other people in this beautiful city. It just makes me really discouraged that MY history -in Houston - is going away forever. One more building gone... another opportunity squandered.... and a part of my connection with Houston sadly removed. Selfish on my part - yes... absolutely! But it is also another nail in the coffin in understanding what Houston was... and how we got to where we are today. And as the saying goes, "those who don't understand the past are doomed to repeat it." But, life goes on....

I kind of think of Houston's architectural environment as a an art gallery, with the corner of Allen Pkwy. and Monstrose being a prime spot. MFA-Houston, Blaffer, and Menil own some really nice works, but even they rotate out every now and then. That's all we're doing, and we do it eternally.

Rotate, yes. Destroy history, absolutely not.

I hope everyone enjoys this new addition to the city and frequents it often.... kind of like the new Federal Reserve Building or The Royalton, right?? Both of these gems rose after historic Houston structures along Allen Parkway were demolished. But hey, who needs history??... we've got these beautiful, modern buildings that everyone just loves to take their place!! History is so overrated. Hey Houston, get the bulldozers ready for the River Oaks Theater... who needs the shoddy old piece of **** anyway.

Read sarcasm... and lots of it.

I live only an hour away from Denver and go up there as often as i can.

I think you misunderstood what i said in my previous post. I was saying that the Denver Pavilions has done a great job drawing retail in the general vincinity. Such as up and down 16th Street mall and other areas. I wasn't talking about just Denver Pavillions itself.

I've done a lot of real estate work and analysis in Denver, so sounds like we both have access to the city on a regular basis.

I understand what you are saying, but most of the retail on 16th was already there pre-Pavilions (I believe it entered the market around 2000). Tabor Center, as well as many of the buildings on 16th that have retail on the first floor, were well established long before the Pavilions project.

I hate to sound like a pessimist - anything is better than the current parking lots in that part of downtown Houston. It is just that we are constantly settling in Houston... things that are trying to get done in Houston today happened 20 years ago in some places. For such a progressive and open-minded city, our development community is sadly behind the times. A project that was completed 7 years ago in Denver - to lackluster success - is not what Houston should be supporting or emulating.

Dang people really need to quit freaking out. I know i'm guilty of having done it but it was just panic. I was thinking that the thing wouldn't get built. As i said earlier, The Denver Pavilions has done great in Denver with drawing retail and other activity. Denver Pavilions doesn't even have residential over that project. I think retail is the main thing that is needed to lure people downtown. Remember this is progress... A bird in the hand is better than two in the Bush .

Not so sure about what you mean by "Denver Pavilions has done great." There have been many casualties on the restaurant side - including Wolfgang Puck's restaurant. Other smaller retailers - esp. on the upper levels - are long, long gone. There are many vacancies. Have you been there?? The only portion of the development that does ok is the area that immediately faces 16th Street on ground level. Overall, retail sales have been so-so there.... many in Denver would say that it is not their first choice for a retail destination... even amongst retail centers downtown.

Denver didn't need to build residential over the Pavilions project. With LoDo - which is down 16th Street from the Pavilions - flourishing, and now with the Platte River surging with new residential construction, downtown Denver is at least a decade ahead of downtown Houston on the residential side... and that is a best case scenario for downtown Houston. And that is my point... if there was one case for a new residential development in downtown Houston, it would be near amenities (retail, light rail, office jobs) as the Pavilions promises. If the developers can't make it work here (and with incentives, no less!), I am skeptical on creating any real residential density downtown. As Kinkaid stated - it is disappointing. We don't need another Bayou Place (which, I may add, is also heavily subsidized!!)...

I think y'all are getting upset over nothing. Someone else mentioned earlier in the thread how all this means is that we'll end up getting residential built on other empty blocks nearby this area. You can't tell me that there aren't other developers that wouldn't love to come in and build next to Houston Pavilions, Toyota Center, and Discovery Green. That's the trifecta!

I can tell you... and I will. If it was such a hot location for residential develoment, as you indicate, we would have seen some progress by now. I'll throw it back at you... tell me a developer (aside from Finger) who is racing downtown to develop multifamily or condo product.

I'm totally with Kinkaid on this... the lack of a residential component in this project IS disappointing. I've recently moved to Seattle and there is so much residential development going on downtown - around and on top of retail space - it'll make your head spin. I would content if these guys can't make residential work on this site in Downtown Houston - with incentives, with a retail element, with A LIGHT RAIL STATION.... please, someone, tell me how can residential ever work downtown?? I love the new park (hate the name)... but it will take more... much more than that.... to create some residential momentum.

I've only lived here for a year.

I'm concerned about what's happening along the Hardy Toll Road. Several wooded tracts of land have been clear-cut. One of them is a neighborhood with the first houses being completed. I can't help but wondering WHY? Why cut down all those trees - just to plant two sticks in the front yard? The neighborhood would look SO much nicer if some trees were left behind.

There is a new clear-cut section along the end of Rayford where it links to Riley Fuzzel too. I feel sorry for those people who just moved into Legends Run. It looks like a bomb went off over there.

Also - I hate to see smoldering piles of cut trees. Don't we already have a bad enough pollution problem in Houston? It should be outlawed in my opinion.

You are right on. The amount of clear-cutting along the toll road just sickens me. The forests that used to predominate in north Harris County are making way for tract housing, strip malls, streets, etc... It is really apparent when you fly into Intercontinental, also. These forests were one of the only natural attributes this area can boast... but much like historic structures... people in Houston and Harris County really don't seem to care. Or when they do, it is way too late...

The lack of planning, lack of environmental concern, lack of foresight (all this run-away development is making air pollution and water runoff issues only more profound)... well, it gets a little maddening.

My apartment faces that lot. It's going to be a bank. That sucks. Granted, I'm happy to no longer have a vacant piece of land to stare at every day, but, to be honest, we have enough banks around here.

I'm happy for development, but I'm sick of bars, banks, dry cleaners and drug stores.

Agreed... yet another huge disappointment for Midtown (and in a very strategic location!). The saga of more poorly-conceived, car-centric, unimaginative Houston development continues.

At the rally on Tuesday I spoke to Culberson after everyone was done speaking; when people started driving away in their SUVs.

I am for the rail being on Richmond and as one of his constituents I felt like I should tell him. I introduced myself to him and was very humble and told him that I was a student at UH and that this line would really be a great thing for the students of the universities in Houston and that I was really disapointed in his position. I was really soft spoken and sounded kinda vulnerable because I really just wanted him to listen and not think I was trying to challenge him at all.

I was shocked when instead of just listening he acted like I was initiating a debate. He blurted that, "I'm in support of rail just not on Richmond." I told him that it would be alot more beneficial to Houstonians and students if it ran down Richmond. Again I said this in a very calm tone and was surprised when he told me that it wasn't what the businesses and residences wanted because it was going to take some of their land. After he told me this I kinda relised he wasn't just going to shake my hand listen and let me run off so I asked him how this was different from when txdot took away all that land from all the citizens and businesses along I-10. He was rude and told me that you couldn't move I-10 (which is true...) and then he told me, "there just isn't going to be rail on Richmond."

The point I'm trying to get around to though is that he seems pretty determined for it not to be on Richmond and I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pull the same stunt Delay pulled when it came to funding Metro.

Also, I'm not sure if this is true. Its a rummor, I suppose. But someone told me that culberson wanted the rail to be on Westpark because it would benefit tx dot in some way and that tx dot gives money to Culberson. I don't know what tx dot would have to gain though so it doesn't really make sense. Does anyone know about this?

Good job! You did the right thing in approaching him....

I approached one of his reps at the last METRO forum (at Saint Paul's) to tell him of my support of rail on Richmond and I got a very similar response. I too was very respectful... and they acted put off - and rude, rude, rude!! I came home and drafted the following letter - which still has gotten no response from his local or Washington offices. "Overwhelming" response from his constituents against rail on Richmond?? - that is total BS!!!! There were many, MANY people at the church that night who were documenting their support for rail on Richmond. I was in a group of 16 people... all begrudgingly recently brought into Culberson's district (thanks to Tom DeLay).

Here is the letter I sent:

Dear Honorable Congressman Culberson:

I am writing you today to express my strong support of METRO's proposal to construct light rail on Richmond Avenue from Midtown to - at least - Greenway Plaza. After researching the proposed alignments and attending tonight's University line meeting at St. Paul's United Methodist Church, I firmly believe the best solution (from east to west) is to:

Start the line at the intersection of Wheeler and Calhoun at the University of Houston and run it straight down Wheeler through TSU to Midtown.

From the Wheeler Station in Midtown, run the light rail westward on Richmond Avenue to just beyond Buffalo Speedway, then turning south THROUGH Greenway Plaza and across the Southwest Freeway to Westpark, then running west along Westpark to the Hillcroft Transit Center.

Once on Westpark, I would like to see a direct connection onto Post Oak Blvd (not a transfer point - a direct line) to the Galleria and to other points north to the Northwest Transit Center.

As both a resident and an employee of a company based within your district (in Greenway Plaza), I provide an example of a constituent who will use this transportation option for both professional and personal reasons. It will have a tremendous, positive impact on inner city Houston from both a transportation and land use perspective. The University line will provide strong linkages to Houston's businesses, educational and cultural resources, and diverse neighborhoods. The alignment I support also serves some of the highest population densities in the metropolitan area.

I hope you will consider my support of this alignment equally with those who may be more vocal against rail on Richmond. As I mentioned, I have researched the issue and listened to both sides... and feel that running through Greenway Plaza (and not through Afton Oaks) provides a healthy compromise. Please, let us come to a good solution and move forward with this project. I would be quite disappointed to see further setbacks - of any sort - in developing a truly efficient transportation system in Houston. Like the Katy Freeway expansion, light rail is a key element to a well-executed, multi-modal system that serves all Houstonians - and all of your constituents.

Thank you.

Just last night, Weingarten said that the demo of the theater is merely a RUMOR right now, and that there is no plan for anything at this point.

Quite simply, damage control....

There have been a great number of bizarre ideas in recent posts. Among the highlights:

There is no such thing as 'public good.' Ayn Rand says so.

Historic movie theaters contribute to sprawl. We should demolish them if we want to be more urban.

If we preserve the few historical buildings we have, businesses will leave Houston, and (I suppose the implication is) our economy will suffer. No mention of the economic hardships of all the cities that have historic preservation laws.

Any value that cannot be measured numerically is not worth the attention of city government.

It's hard to argue with this kind of logic.

Maybe the best idea is just to ignore it.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why waste time getting into it with folks that are set with their ideas on "property rights" and "capitalism is always first"?... (and always being contrarian.) We have some theaters to save people... let's get to work!!!

I live in in the River Oaks Theater 'hood and the last thing I want is a condo tower looking down on me. Keeping the neighborhood in scale and preserving a valuable neighborhood asset (which generates lots of pedestrian traffic and civic pride!) are my priorities... and I'll do what I can to save these rare commodities in Houston. I'm appealling to my neighbors - and those of you who agree with me - to stay vigilant and keep the pressure on Weingarten. If you don't agree with me... c'est la vie!

Have a good weekend all...

I'll be at next Tuesday's meeting... showing my support of rail down Richmond to at least Greenway Plaza. And, ardently supporting continued expansion of METRO light rail in Houston.

I am really tired of the Afton Oaks crowd. They are vehemently against rail on Richmond - fine. No problem. They are totally entitled. But the condescension - and hypocrisy - I have seen repeatedly in public forums from this group sickens me. They rally against the degradation in their quality of life if light rail were to go through their neighborhood... yet apparently don't complain about the loud, belching freight trains (hauling hazardous cargo, no less!) that roll right next to the neighborhood many times a day. They cry for the future of their stately oaks along Richmond (really?), yet don't mention a damn thing about the invasion of McMansions that rip the hell out of the tree canopy on their streets. They moan about the traffic driving too fast through their neighborhood... yet I haven't heard a peep from these "concerned citizens" about the developers that throw up retail, office, and apartment developments around their tranquil subdivision... you know, the very developments that generate all that traffic! So, Afton Oaks, going to try and stop the development at West Creek?... or further development in Highland Village?... or how about the proposal on the HISD land?? Gonna produce bumper stickers and talk down to the rest of Houston about that?? Yeah, didn't think so...

Good luck to you folks in your traffic-clogged, one-upping, we-are-better-than-you Wonderland.

The design of it is okay overall, except with the exception of the little cul-de-sac where I assume people are supposed to be dropped off in. Those have a tendency to get backed up quickly and even from the drawings, it appears that the turn is too tight for anything larger than a mid-size.

The "cul-de-sacs" serve as entry points into the concealed parking garage... and more importantly... there is a large pedestrian area between these two drives to serve the restaurants and foot traffic in the development. This is why (and where) the city is considering closing that block of Bolsover. There is not much through traffic on Bolsover anyway, so I say close it. How nice would it be to have a pedestrian plaza in the midst of the Rice Village? (as opposed to dodging cars every 10 feet!).

I don't mind the design at all. It ties in with some of the architecture at nearby Rice University - which is also "faux Italian" or "faux Mediterranean" if we are honest about it... and I, for one, treasure that campus.

I did not say that. I said titles like fattest city (much like other negative titles as "murder capital" and "most polluted") tend to stick to a city.

I'm not saying the city deserves the title. In fact, it's a silly ranking. But winning the title four times in the last five years does not help the city's stature. No other city has received that title as often as Houston has.

I've traveled the nation, too, and people I've spoken with associate that title with the city more than anything that's happened in Houston in recent history (though Enron comes close).

I travel around quite often as well... and host business associates from around the country. I have found that people never mention the Fat Title. In fact, the only time I hear it mentioned is by people in Houston - from Houston - just calling it to other people's attention! It is amazing to me that many times we are our worst enemies when trying to put a good face on the city. Many, many times I've heard people compliment Houston for a variety of reasons... only to hear someone say "yeah, but we're fat!" or "but it is sooo hot" or "too bad the air is polluted." You even see it in this forum from time to time. Having lived in many other cities, with equally profound issues, I rarely heard those same responses.

I really like this town... and I know it does have issues. But we need to learn to take compliments - and put stupid fat titles in perspective. For example, Houston was just listed as the third best city in the nation for business and careers by Forbes Magazine. That's enviable... and far more important for all of us (and based on economic facts) than some ridiculous fatness index (our whole country is getting obese!). Yet, here we go again... somebody pops off about Fat Houston when talking about the city rather than talking about a healthy business climate. Unreal.

Back to the original question... Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta have more similarities than differences in the way they are developing... and share common issues. There are specific differences in their economic bases and demographics... but all have well outperformed the nation in employment growth over the past 15 years. All, also, have enviable housing and living costs... and have recently started focusing more on quality of life enhancements - Atlanta (large park system expansion), Dallas (Trinity River Project), and Houston (bayou and park system clean up and enhancement). As mentioned before, Dallas and Atlanta have more recent experiences with mixed-use, high-density developments... but Houston is catching up in short order with many projects in the finance or design stage. All in all, these are the three economic horses of the Southern United States... and have a lot to offer their citizens.

I have heard that Black Eyed Pea and that entire strip on the North side is going to be a Barnes and Noble bookstore.

I have heard the exact same... and have total faith in my source. The question of the high-rise condo project on the theater site brought on a hearty chuckle from that same source....

"This will all be moot once The Mandarin Victory(45 stories and 600ft) and Hall's tower in the Arts District is completed. The Hall tower(50 stories and undisclosed height, but from the model, will be in the 800ft range) was assumed by all to be a no go or simply pie in the sky. Then Hall came out with a statement about wanting to start when material prices lowered a bit. Now we now see that Hunt Construction has been awarded the construction contract to build it starting this coming fall."

Hold up... I thought the building that would contain the Dallas Mandarin would have a large office component, also. In fact, and please correct me if I am wrong (because that is entirely possible), I think the Mandarin Hotel and Residences will be on the lower floors and the office component will be on the higher floors. If so, I would qualify this building as the tallest mixed-use project (office, hotel, condo, retail) in Texas... but not the tallest residential tower. Does that make sense?

Definitely H&M... here's hoping that they finally break into the Galleria one of these days (maybe the old Macy's store when they move into the new Foley's???)

Room & Board, which is in the Midwest and Southern California. Fantastic furniture and beautiful stores.

I would love to have a Virgin Records Megastore in Houston - and while it is not a chain - Virgin Airlines, too. If any of you ever get the chance to fly Virgin, don't pass it up...

Nice project in a strategic location... Dallas has some really impressive developments going up. I spend a lot of time there on business (in real estate), and it is really fascinating to see the flurry of construction activity.

It is no surprise that there are vacancy issues in downtown Dallas... it has been that way for 20 years. What is surprising is the volume of multifamily construction and conversions in the downtown core and the amount of office, condo, retail, and hotel development in Uptown / Victory. Lenders clearly aren't bothered with the issue of too much supply - or future vacancy issues - so I won't be either.

In the meantime, some of these projects offer good examples for Houston (particularly Midtown) on increasing densities and mixing uses.

I don't think the point is that Sarnoff was necessarily a bad reporter. I think that the issue is that the Chronicle doesn't really care about having the kind of in-depth stories that Houston19514 describes (and all of us here would love to see). It is the same thing with architecture reporting, as I've said a billion times or so. The Chronicle doesn't really care about it. Critical reporting would require them to make judgements, and offend some readers, and they would prefer not to. That is their call. To theNiche's point, they are an advertising delivery system, and they probably don't believe the investment in stronger reporting, opinion, or critical stories would pay off in revenue.

This isn't specific to the Chronicle, either. They are very much equivalent to the lead newspapers in most US cities. It is like some kind of Gresham's Law for reporting. Bad money drives out the good, and fluff news drives out the substantive. Just check out the revised Yahoo home page to see it in action.

Bingo!!! I can't believe the way people are ripping on Sarnoff here. Ease up folks! I'm not sure if any of you recall, but prior to her tenure at the Chronicle, Sarnoff was doing solid work at the Houston Business Journal. I don't remember anyone complaining then...

The reason for the lack of quality real estate reporting (or local architecture commentary - which is non-existent) lies completely with the Houston Chronicle... and specifically Jeff Cohen. When he came to the Chronicle a few years ago, he made a concerted effort to make the paper "prettier", crank up advertising sales, and dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. Instead of deep, probing articles that enlighten people, articles (no matter the section) are geared for a 5th grader to comprehend. It is truly pathetic... and an embarrassment for America's 4th largest city.

People should realize that what any reporter writes is very heavily edited... especially at the Chronicle. Sarnoff wasn't there very long... perhaps that should tell people that maybe, just maybe, she shared some of the same frustrations that people are expressing here. Compare her work at the HBJ with her work at the Chronicle... the difference is clear. Same reporter... different environment.

Lastly, this forum should be really upset at the Chronicle for another reason. What they have done to the pedestrian environment along Texas Avenue downtown is criminal. Their scaffolding surrounding the building has obstructed the sidewalks - and marred the landscape on a key area of the CBD - for years now! It is unbelievable... repair your problematic facade already!!! I'd love to see the city get after the Chronicle... or how about the Downtown Management District?????

Putting on the Ritz

Ritz-Carlton Village

Thank you for posting the image... very helpful. Dallas friends... what architecture firm designed this project? I really like the integration of landscape materials on the upper floors.

I don't know that Houston EVER had a good architectural reputation re: civic/public architecture. I rather doubt it. I have to agree the new fire station is underwhelming and disappointing.

For the most part; however, I do not doubt that the Rice University campus has a good - if not strong - architectural reputation. Thank goodness for that gem in the heart of our city...

Our most recent government buildings are uninspired and disappointing. I hate to say this, but after such blunders as the Hobby Center parking garage, the new Court Building, and now the central fire station (all designed by Houston firms, I may add) - I think we would be better served to consider firms outside of Houston. It is pretty rare to find a prized Houston building designed by a Houston firm. I don't want to step on any toes here... but the evidence is there.

If Houston is truly a global city (and I think it is!), let's start importing some progressive and forward-thinking design... as we did in our not so distant past! If anything, it would make architectural assignments more competitive for the design community here... and trigger better responses.

The same people who make fun of the Big Dig today are likely to have made fun of...

The Houston Ship Channel

The Texas Medical Center

NASA

IAH

There are some people that will NEVER support funding for the greater public good. There are also others who think the market should control EVERYTHING. Thankfully, I am not one of those people.

Trust me, while people here hated the Big Dig while it was being built, they are LOVING it now. It has made Boston 100% better and it was a pretty darn nice city to begin with.

Additionally, since when did Texans become such whimps?

I didn't realize the sun and humidty where so much to bare. Maybe you should hoof it on up to New England?

Well, I usually agree with you - but on this topic - not so much. I'm sure the people of Massachusetts really are loving that project... especially considering the deal they got out of it! Billions and billions over budget... and with the rest of the United States there to bail them out... sweet! Good for Boston. Meanwhile, we have to pay for the initial portion of our light rail system out of our own pockets... which no other city in America has had to bear. Soooo, Boston gets rewarded for ineptitude... Houston gets screwed every step of the way in trying to expand its transportation options. Unbelievable... I know, I know - part of the blame goes to our representatives in Congress - but I throw a lot of blame at Washington for not monitoring and correcting the debacle that was the Big Dig before it got so very out of hand. Anyway, if you have chosen Boston as home, good for you - it is a great town. It sounds as if development patterns and the planning strategy there are right up your alley. As Mayor White said last year, if Houston isn't for you, you need to vote with your feet and go elsewhere and find a place that is more to your liking (I couldn't believe he said that, but I heard it with my own ears).

While I am not happy one bit about this CVS project on Main, I'm not feeling the outrage. I won't shop there... simple as that. Its not in my neighborhood... and while I don't mean to sound sublime about it... this is not surprising - Midtown seems to be losing a lot of momentum. I blame the city... I blame speculators (sorry, but I find it hard to listen to Midtown advocates / developers dissing a CVS when land speculators are asking ridiculous amounts for land in the area - and are in fact choking out residential growth)... I blame Greyhound... I blame transients... but all the blame in the world doesn't change a thing. Until Houston's majority really gives a flip about land use planning, smart growth, etc... we'll be hearing about lots of development like this. It is what it is.

Texans aren't whimps. Either are New Englanders.

Greenway took a hit when El Paso moved out of 9 Greenway to their own building downtown the last few years. I believe they occupied nearly 900k SF of space in Greenway before the move. I think there lease is still in place, but they are not occupying the space. A deal was struck a few months ago, but I do not know the specifics.

Another hot area is Westchase. At least in terms of class A. The Occupancy levels are very strong in that market with the big question being BMC who last I heard was trying to unload it's real estate and lease it back on their terms*

Their terms are not exaclty what investors are looking for.

Well, they were what TPG/CalSTRS were looking for...

Company Adds 1.5 Million Square Feet of Premium Space to Its Houston Portfolio

HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 7, 2006--Thomas Properties Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:TPGI - News), through its joint venture with the California State Teachers' Retirement System, TPG/CalSTRS, LLC, has entered into a $295 million definitive agreement with BMC Software, Inc. to acquire its four-building, 1.5-million-square-foot campus and 24 acres of adjacent developable land.

The properties are all strategically located in the Westchase District of Houston and within the same CityWest development as Thomas Properties' adjacent 25-story office tower located at 2500 CityWest Boulevard. Upon the closing of this transaction, expected to occur in June 2006, Thomas Properties Group will own interests in and/or manage a portfolio of approximately 12 million square feet of commercial real estate in the United States, including approximately four million square feet in the Houston market.