NYC Texan2

I actually went on the Dreamward on my honeymoon in 1995 . . . It was a new boat, but small at 750 passengers. It was very nice, but attracted a mostly older crowd. My understanding is that both the Sea and the Dream are new names for the old Seaward and Dreamward. To increase their ability to compete with the larger ships, the boats were drydocked, sawed in half and increased significantly in length . . . . thus the 1500 person capacity.

This is a great thing as far as vacationing options for people in Texas.

I hear you on the negativity, so apologies . . . but the $80 million isn't money they are going to spend to develop the park, just acquire it. If I had more time, I would definitely be more involved, but here is what they need to have for a great urban park (and given that it is right in front of the convention center and its hotel, I think we can all agree that they absolutely must make a positive impression on visitors that will overlook it . . . . And the park should invite people out to eat lunch there from inside the building). Ergo, here's a list of what a great urban park should have from a guy that just moved from walking distance to Central Park:

1. Old-fashioned wooden benches curving (yes, curving) along pathways (they should have people sponsor them like they do in Central Park--that's an idea they really should use)

2. A playground with a water fountain / sprinkler feature for hot summer days

3. A small pond or other water feature

4. A hill or two for variety

5. A broad formal lawn in one section

6. Lots of azeleas (play to our strengths)

Here is why Market Square is useless as a residential magnet:

1. No playground

2. No benches that don't face the street

3. Paths that just cut through the block -- they are made to go from A to B, not to wander

4. That horrible, horrible whatever in the center. It is not attractive, and there is no one who would really care if their condo overlooked it or not.

5. Lack of any water feature to hold interest that doesn't face the street (or other feature other than the horrible #4)--there's nothing that nivites you into the park to discover anything

I think the Park would lend a very attractive, master planned look to the area, which is all good. I just think that the City Parks Department is in a financial straightjacket and unable to do anything really first-rate.

Austin can be an interesting place. My wife lived there for seven years and loves it. I lived there for three and never found it to be more than a college town with some nice hills. If that is what you want, then Austin is the place to be. Obviously, lots of people like it a lot. Houston has the size and complexity and culture of a more urban place (albeit that it should be more urban), and those are things that are important to me. When people talk in the manner of that article (the city is "soulless"), they sound just a little over the top.

I just don't understand putting the Fox Sport place in there . . . I don't know whether to blame the Galleria or the chain. Given that the Rainforest Cafe also opened and closed its Galleria location, I just have this feeling that the Galleria marketing crew goes in and frightens these marquis chains away from any more interesting part of town. BTW, they must seriously cover up the parking issues involved with the Galleria generally . . .

The Galleria is free to market itself however it wants, but I seriously doubt the Fox Sports Grill can be huge success in that location.

This whole project is just really overblown. The comparisons to Central Park are absolutely ridiculous. If this city treats it like the other parks, it's hopeless. My local park at White Oak Bayou and Studemont is a mix of bad planning, no budget and just total neglect. You would think the city would want to make up for a lack of natural beauty with some nice parkland, but instead it's like pulling teeth. There's no way "Millennium Park" is anywhere in the city's vocabulary. We will be very lucky if it doesn't turn out like Market Square, which is so ugly and useless that it can't make downtown housing grow up around (or anyone even walk in it . . . ever) despite its excellent location.

Don't know anything about the house, but I thought I saw another one, or perhaps a large garage apartment, on the back half of the lot. I am still trying to figure out what the 5-6 story building is going up behind a house on the opposite side of Heights. I don't mind a midrise, but I am worried that they will just tear down the house when they are almost done for parking.

I think we should all be strongly in favor of any efforts to give our neighborhoods a higher level of identity and more of a master-planned feeling to the city (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . . ). I have been through the Washington traffic circle and think it looks good. A great traffic circle would have development around it, though (e.g., Dupont Circle in D.C.), and I thought the buildings are built too far back. But give it time and hope . . . .

Could the cost estimates be another factor impacting the start schedule for the Shamrock? I still think it is just not going to happen. Anybody know how much the land was bought for??

I truly don't understand why the city should have to go begging for donations to put together a decent park. Parks can have a huge impact on quality of life, but only if they are done well. Market Square = bad, bad, bad. Central Park = good, very good. This could be an asset and could generate some development, but it is hard to see that the impact will be that great, especially with the hotel and the convention center on two sides. We are basically trying to jump start some in-fill development between the convention center hotel and the Ballpark.

I would be really interested to hear your take on the role of developers in the planning process vis-a-vis service roads. I really feel like there is heavy influence that is below the surface of our political scene for whatever reason, and, as a result, our cityscape is more bleak.

An interesting question is what would the city look like without feeders. I think we can safely conclude that commercial ventures would remain on main commercial avenues. I believe that streets such as Westheimer would be more interesting, without ten billion tiny strip stores. The demand for inner city land would be higher, as the lack of feeders would strip a vast amount of commercial real estate off the market. Downtown might be more dense, and midtown might never have gone down the tubes the way it did in the 80s. Without the feeders to supply that land, land values would be higher in town, and there would be greater population density with more midrise/highrise construction.

I realize much of this probably sounds like speculation, but I believe the choice to go with freeways (at a huge waste of money) has done more to scar our landscape and decrease the quality of life than any other major decision during the last 75 years.

Where is the phone number? The Heights Association should get involved in this--

I don't have a problem with the Target itself. It is a box. I have a problem with everything else about the site plan.

Also, remember the site: It is raised about 30 feet above the freeway--no great views from the interstate of the store, except for the signs. Again, it more urban than suburban. I agree with HeightsGuy, as a guy that also lives in the Heights and drives around the area constantly.

Of course, it could quite easily be a CVS if CVS decides to purchase/lease a parcel. This is extremely suburban--basically, I think it is designed to attract enterprises that are more comfortable in a suburban setting than in an urban landscape. Whether this tract is attractive enough to convince those operators will determine if the project goes forward. Target has to be a huge attraction, since there isn't much neighborhood traffic that goes through on Taylor.

They could do something much more interesting if they wanted to, I think. They could do roof parking/a parking garage and make the development more dense. they could make a main street setting where they controlled everything on the blocks. It doesn't have to be this way . . . .

Can't say I am overwhemed by the vision, or lack thereof, in that site plan. Looks like a whole bunch of freestanding Applebees.

The neighborhood is desperate for the Target though, and it can't hurt. Beats a bunch of warehouses.

That is basically the same thing as saying demand doesn't exist--which may be true. The expense of the units is a function of land value, and if "demand" exists, it will support the values these units are typically marketed at of $250,000 - $500,000. It's really not a lot of money these days for real estate, especially given interest rates and the markets in other cities. The developers want to move the units and will position their offerings as best they can to do that--if the demand won't support these prices, I doubt that they will be able to finance new construction of anything cheaper, unless the market just wants a bunch of studio apartments.

I am not sure that I see the contradiction. . . . An owner of property wants to maximize his/her return, and the type of development is impacted significantly by the value of the raw land. While owners are always looking for an angle, a study like the one cited can provide new information to landowners/developers regarding demand that they may not be in a position to measure themselves.

If there isn't the demand for dense mass transit corridors, the MTA isn't going to get anywhere with the rail line anyway. But I don't think anyone here thinks that is a result that can be realistically expected here. . . .

Gotta argue with MidtownCoug equating buses with rail: there is no way I would ever buy/rent an apartment with noisy, smokey buses passing by. Trains are different. Buses are perceived to be nasty.

As far as data for the study, it is from multiple cities, not just "real estate speculators", whatever that means. The land will have value if people want it. While it is frustrating when someone decides to hold land rather than develop it, it is always a decision relating to maximizing the value of the property. That is the only way to make sure it is developed to its highest and best use.

How exactly could this be rigged, anyway? The study just affirms what almost everyone on the board wants: greater population density downtown.

Anyone know what the 5-6 story building is between White Oak and I-10 on Heights Boulevard? It is on the west side behind a house, with only driveway access to Heights. I haven't seen any signs on the site . . .

There is a lot happening on that stretch of Heights Boulevard: 2 houses, the new retail center (I wonder if it is a "dry location" and that is why they have had trouble leasing it?), and the office building next to the retail center. Have to say that the stonework on the retail looks out of place in the Heights, but it does look luxe.

My theory is that Commerce Towers have blown a hole in the sustainability of more downmarket projects due to the fact that there has to be a substantial part of those buildings still unsold. Does anyone have any info regarding the project's status? Hard to believe they are going to make much money at this point.

The issue impacts the rest of downtown, since whenever the Commerce Towers owner decides to bail, a whole bunch of well-finished units may be competing for attention with the other proposed projects.

For this reason and the obvious delays in breaking ground, I have a hard time believing that the Shamrock is going to happen. Perhaps it will happen with fewer floors, but the delay doesn't make sense in the context of the upward curve of interest rates. Thoughts?

Don't forget that the downtown/midtown housing boom started with a study that concluded that demand existing for 100,000 downtown-centered housing units. This stuff can have a huge impact if it is communicated to the industry.