Jump to content


Full Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by iah77

  1. Just now, bobruss said:

    BBP is looking for as many opportunities to work with landowners  of industrial sites and old city of Houston sites to continue progress on it's eastern sections.

    On this present document the East River is defined as a development called Richardson.

    That's absolutely not true because they don't seem to care about the thousands of low income families around the site who are going to be displaced by the incoming wave of gentrification. Do you really think people who live in the area now are going to go to the fancy cafes in the render or use "boat landings" lol? How about they figure out a a way to lock down property taxes to not displace families and industries already there?


    HR&A out of NYC btw was working on these plans way before 2002 when they were released to the public. A lot of large plots magically traded hands around then. 


    • Confused 1
  2. 8 hours ago, bobruss said:

    Buffalo Bayou Partnership wasn't the seller of this property. It's merely a steward for Buffalo Bayou.

    Midway was smart enough to see the potential and willing to cooperate with B. B. P.,  knowing the importance  saving this strategic piece of property would be.  Thank goodness Midway's CEO had the interest in helping B. B. P. for years, being involved in whatever capacity he was. The fact is he understood the importance of this property for the city, the public, and the B. B. P. for access,  recreational use and natural beauty.  This was an opportunity to save and develop at the same time. And it will be a very successful development for Midway, as it should. I believe it was KBR who sold the property too Midway. I 'm pretty sure the bidding for this tract was open to the public and several different groups were speculated as winners during the process.

    It  came down to Midway, and I'm glad it did, because their CEO through his time spent with the B.B.P. is going to insure that Midway helps the B.B.P. create the most beautiful scenic waterway for everyone with  more access for all to interact with and enjoy.

    Anyone with a brain can understand the "importance" of building next to someone else's billion dollar tax funded beautification project having retrieved information to buy land below what it's market value would be had the public known lol. It's cool to like what they are doing but don't say that it was a totally transparent deal, they had access to not yet public information. 

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, bobruss said:

    In many ways Midway is similar to Hanover in that they do their due diligence and move to action. This will not come to fruition over night but will grow organically over several years.

    I am so pleased to know that they will be working with Buffalo Bayou Partnership to insure a healthy and viable greenbelt along the Bayou which will continue the growth of one of Houston's most visible and undeniably best assets. I look forward with anticipation to seeing this stretch of the bayou becoming an even more valuable asset to the community and give the east side of town  the impetus to become the next great hotbed of community activity, and dynamic and thoughtful growth.


    Working with? A better description would be that they knew about the Partnership's plans for the bayou before they were even released to the public over 5 years ago. To most this would be more akin to insider trading lol.  

    • Confused 4
  4. 15 minutes ago, bobruss said:

    Unfortunately some developers just don't get it. This is a project that should be happening in downtown near Minute Maid and the Convention center.

    Or on top of the Galleria. Not on an island a mile from the Galleria and the Post oak Westheimer intersection. Actually right across the street in the Dillards parking lot is where it should go in

    the Galleria, but my preference would be near Discovery Green. Back it up to the Embassy suites on the vacant lot.

    If they didn't "get it", they probably wouldn't be able to obtain financing. I think its a good location for condos (where the owners will most certainly use cars as their main form of transportation) and a lower end hotel where most of the guest would most likely prefer to go to the Gallaria than the opera or symphony...  


    Luminair, notice that it isn't going in FiDi or the Midtown East/Park Ave, it's going in Times Sq where lower end tourist like to stay exactly like what they are targeting here.



    • Like 2
  5. Most of the project is office besides the first floor which is retail/food. They aren't separate as the article mentions but integrated into those large atriums since other way they would not get any natural light.  I know two major tenants are both related to entertainment, one just opened in Dallas.


    Now that Eataly is opening at NorthPark I'm thinking this would be a great spot for them lol.


    The parking I know is reserved for future high rises. Rendering I saw has like at least 5

    • Like 6
  6. 52 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:


    I am not against interaction with others; I welcome it on my own initiative, as mentioned above. It is computerized systems that I don't need assistance from. Let me make my own way and interact with people voluntarily.


    It's mainly a security thing so you can't access other floors that you don't belong on.


    It also has an algorithm kinda like uber pool to group people in the fastest manner. 

    • Like 1
  7. 6 hours ago, gclass said:



    W HOTEL the PALM - dubai, uae


    W HOTEL al HABTOOR CITY - dubai, uae




    @iah77 perhaps the REAL QUERY that you should be presenting is... WHY DOESN'T HOUSTON, THE 4th LARGEST CITY IN THE USA... HAVE ONE YET?  (dallas has one, atlanta has two, austin has one, and so on) please feast your eyes upon the above illustrations that i have showcased.  i have harbored the utmost pleasure of vacationing at both of these W HOTEL pleasure palaces in dubai, uae, while i was working abroad in afghanistan.  high-end style, sophistication, supreme service, foremost amenities, spectacular design, location, ultra-posh, and comfort, are just a few of the primary reasons that i often opt to vacay/stay at a W HOTEL brand.  it very often makes me sick to my stomach that our fair city of houston has to jump through all forms bullshit hoops just to try and land a W brand.  we have very recently tried DESPERATELY to land one downtown at the GEORGE R. BROWN (and even this one fell through).  JUST WHAT ON EARTH IS THE HUGE PROBLEM WITH HOUSTON ACQUIRING A W BRAND HOTEL... all the while, all of the other major cities across the globe are getting them (or already have them)?  WHY ON EARTH DO THEY JUST KEEP SNUBBING HOUSTON?  it is highly embarrassing when my good friends from out of town ask me about our W HOTEL... and i have to state to them that "we do not have on yet" and then hear them gasp and say "WHAT, YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING"!    


    LOL, the W in Habtoor City (your second pic) literally lasted only maybe  a year opening early 2017 and closed down over a year ago early 2018 and was re-branded as a Hilton...

    • Like 2
  8. 2 minutes ago, Angostura said:


    This is considerably less ambitious than earlier renderings. Some skylights and grass on the roof, but no new footprint, and no engagement with the bayou. 



    This is literally just phase one and there's no engagement with the bayou because the city nor DT TIRZ were being cooperative in making it happen. For some reason Turner is putting all his eggs with Midway... and by for some reason I mean $. 

    • Like 4
  9. 2 hours ago, rechlin said:

    It doesn't seem like anyone is suggesting the government should force anyone to develop something.


    The idea of property taxes being shifted to more land-based and less improvement-based is not a new concept, or an illiberal concept.  Land is scarce and finite; improvement is not.  Because taxes can be seen as a discouragement to do certain things, it makes sense that it's in the public interest to focus more on taxing the land than the improvement.  The Economist newspaper has advocated for this, too, as I recall.  To avoid vacant properties from increasing sprawl, which makes costs go up for everyone, some jurisdictions charge higher taxes for some vacant properties, too.  This is all a system of encouragement; nobody is forcing anything.


    The Regent Square property has been a blight on central Houston for a long time now -- a giant fenced off field that is serving no use to anybody, aside from a small amount of vacant-land property taxes being paid.  Perhaps it would make sense for Texas to charge higher property tax rates on vacant or unused urban properties (like Regent Square and the old Holiday Inn downtown) to minimize blight and encourage investment.

    The Economist over the years had drifted leftwards and I think most people would agree there is no "shortage" of land in Texas. I would argue the opposite, that there is plenty of land and the problem here is improving it. The main cost of most project is the improvements and not the land.  Here we have a labor shortage and now materials have gone up with Trumps tariff along with insurance. The government here subsidizes sprawl via cheap highways and FHA loans which highly favor new homes and almost never fund condos or older homes. 


    Augostura who is the "we" in what we want? I promise you your ideal city looks very different from mine lol. Is the land truly valuable if the owner has decided to leave it as parking? Most of the city I can guaranty you does not want to work in downtown and I'm not even sure the roads can handle more cars into it at peak hours. Real estate is very cyclical and your idea mainly only functions in an up cycle. Your idea might actually encourage the demolition of historic areas as many times the land value is so high to you it might not justify having a nice historic home on the very valuable lot etc but anyways just playing devils advocate since I don't mind either much. 


    People don't seem to get that taxes discourage everything period. 

    • Like 1

    1 hour ago, Angostura said:



    Apparently they weren't high enough. 


    Our valuation system fails to discourage under-development. If instead we had a land-value tax, sites like this would be developed a lot faster (and we'd have a lot fewer surface parking lots downtown).





    Also, looking for the parking in the rendering and I can't find it.


    Why should the government be able to force you to develop something?


    That's like taxing people who don't study for not "developing" the full potential of their mind lmao.


  • Create New...