largeTEXAS

It's going to be an office building for HCC

Outstanding. Beautiful. Shows that Austin is certainly forward-thinking and willing to take a few risks with its architecture. To me, this is one of the most exciting projects in the country. I wish Houston would learn a thing or two from projects like this

no-worries

Code will require more parking.

There's no code demanding parking in downtown Houston.

How was the remake a design failure? It's depressing that they feel the need to redo the space already however, which makes me dubious that can really become a "vibrant, exciting, active public space".

Ahh, we'll see if you're right, Subdude! When the space has been rebuilt, will it be successful this time? I'm banking on, yes. I have a lot of trust in PPS and think they did a great job with Discovery Green and Market Square. The last redo was done by a lighting designer who has absolutely NO business designing a public space. I'm still pissed and intrigued they hired him in the first place.

Call the Midtown Management District: 713.526.7577

http://www.houstonmidtown.com/

I-45 as a park through the western part of downtown...

Before

After

Before

After

As soon as I realized what kinds of rents they had to get in order to break even, I was secretly hoping this day would come. The development, albeit pretty weird and ugly, is already there. Cheaper selling price will mean, I hope, improvements to the sidewalk experience, especially along Dallas (as Pleak mentioned). Cheaper selling price will also mean cheaper rents. Cheaper rents = tenants. Tenants = activity. Activity = better tenants; better tenants = more exciting place to be.

Thank you, brucesw and sixthwardguy. I'll follow up with MHMRA and Louis Shanks and see if they have anything. Depending on what we can find, we'll gear the development to respond to the building. I'll keep you all posted when there's more definitive info.

Thanks!

Hello, we're looking to rehab and redevelop the old Suniland Furniture building at Main and Tuam in Midtown. Below are photos of the building in its current state. If anyone has any photos of the building as it originally looked, we would love you forever! We think it was built in 1928 (and, obviously, added onto over the years). The downtown library doesn't seem to have any photos of the building.

Thanks!

I also applaud the effort. But, if you're going to build a signature bridge (and spend all the time and money to do so), at least hire an architect that will design something innovative and interesting! How many more bridges (that look the same) does Calatrava have to design before people say, enough?

Keep the parking lot - just pick some of its spaces to be rotating collections, construction, and so forth. We pull up and come and go among them. There could still be 20 or more slots along Main, along the garden wall, and connecting the two, which have a more permanent interface and a bit of street-wall enclosure, but all in all I s'pose it is one solution to 'dissolving the boundary' brought up by HAIF above. And making this new part of the Fine Arts Houston complex be as diffuse as its hometown experience.

As for the parking spaces with rotating collections and blending the boundary, I believe smaller organizations could/should also best fill this role. As cool as it would be for an institution like the MFAH to embark on an unconventional manner in which to display art, I think independent art spaces are the way to go. Did you ever visit Artstorm, or have you ever visited the Johanna or Skydive? These are just a few of the more experimental, temporary, and/or unconventional art spaces close to or in the Museum District. There are also organizations such as No Longer Empty and others that inhabit empty storefronts for temporary exhibits http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/culture/no-vacancy-turning-empty-spaces-into-cultural-pop-ups/.

I get the idea of having art, quality, museum-standard art showcased in a place that's vulnerable and disaster-prone. New Orleans' Prospect Biennials http://www.prospectneworleans.org/ and P.S.1 http://momaps1.org/ in Queens, NYC have been just that. For P1 and P2 (New Orleans), the curators use temporary spaces - abandoned buildings, parking lots, industrial manufacturing yards - as venues to display, often site specific, art pieces by some of the most renowned contemporary artists in the world. It's spectacular, really, to see pieces that would normally be hung in giant, billion-dollar white boxes sitting so accessibly in spaces crusty with crime and ridden with weeds. P.S.1 is housed in a beat up (well, used to be) old public school far from the establishment on the Upper East Side. Yet, MoMA purchased P.S.1, I believe, to do something similar to what you are proposing - reach out to artists and other segments of the population, that might not venture too frequently to the shiny, expensive, established art museums.

But, perhaps, this idea of a museum in Galveston should be something separate. The location of the current MFAH, I believe, needs the type of unification the prospectus outlines. The public spaces need to be better oriented, there need to be more comfortable and casual spaces, there need to be more and better food options, there needs to be additional theater space, etc.

Perhaps the MFAH could partner with an institution to establish a satellite venue. Or, even better, let an organization with no ties to a big established art institution open up in Galveston and catch the attention of the establishment.

http://www.loopnet.c...d&PgCxtDir=Down

Ok, I'm trying to understand what you're proposing. It sounds like you think the MFAH should consider linking its "campus" to an old industrial building in Galveston? And, this would reverse Houston "turning its back" on the "historic seaport from which (it) wanted to part ways?" Another part of your proposal is that Holl "blur the line between sculpture garden and parking lot with a system of spaces devoted to permanent and temporary installation." Is this what you would see be accomplished by inhabiting the old Galveston brewery?

I'm a little confused, but I think I like your thinking. Please explain.

I think it better rounds out the MFAH in the imagination to have this emplacement stand separately. I'd like to see Holl blur the line between sculpture garden and parking lot with a system of spaces devoted to permanent and temporary installation, but not too much in the way of shelters. I'd love to see him propose to spread out over & above the brewery at Sheppard Park in G-town. Let it be a stilted foundation and then, on ground lease, let private concerns come in and renovate around and underneath /afterward/.

strickn, what is the "brewery at Sheppard Park in G-town?"

Thanks for the post from someone who has lived there, Andrew. I have fought the stereotyping of Downtown for years. I went to school downtown in the 80s, officed there in the 90s and 00s, and have conducted business in downtown for the last 16 years. I have even owned and operated a restaurant in downtown. Invariably, the whining and carping about the "dangerous homeless" population comes from people who neither live nor work downtown. After 7 years of posting on this forum, I know well that no matter how much information is given, and no matter how many resources are devoted to downtown, there will still be those who freak out at the site of a homeless person.

There is really nothing one can do to stop it. A large segment of the population lives in suburban, largely segregated areas, and will never be comfortable amongst those who look different from themselves. The only "urbanity" that they can handle is the faux urban areas built in the suburbs, such as Sugar Land Town Center and Woodlands Market Street. That is fine. I wish them no ill will for that preference. What annoys me is when they venture into downtown and criticize it for not being as sterile and segregated as the faux urban areas they prefer. Some of the complaints even come from people who never come downtown at all! The 'I never go downtown because...' crowd are the worst.

I try to ignore the misinformation posted by the occasional visitors from the clean, new and orderly parts of town. But, then the misinformation and hyperbole begin, and once again I rush to downtown's aid. I do not particularly care that the poster or the moderators think I am bullying. It is more important that a forum that is read as often as this one not be full of uncontradicted misinformation and exagerations from those who cannot handle buildings and sidewalks over 10 years old. So, I respond. Sometimes I even point out that the only time I have been robbed was in Rice Village, not downtown.

Some people simply need to look in the mirror and admit that they are not cut out for downtown living or recreation. It's OK. Downtown will survive without them. Houston Pavilions, maybe not.

So curious what restaurant you owned downtown, RedScare?! I've worked with quite a few restaurants and retailers downtown over the years; I wonder if we've run into each other. Actually, on second thought, maybe it's better we stay anonymous

I agree with much of your post. There are a ton of suburban-only-minded people in this city and on this forum that can't, or choose not to, get comfortable with the idea of true city living. Nick_G, as most have us seem to have acknowledge by now, does not seem to be one of those people. Quite the contrary. I really appreciate the energy he brings to this discussion and to the effort to revitalize downtown.

I'm speaking only for myself here, but I think for a lot of us who have worked/lived/put our blood, sweat, and tears into downtown over the years, it is difficult to read posts that are critical of downtown and that don't acknowledge the accomplishments it's made over the years. (Downtown and Houston have actually frustrated me to such a great extent at different points that I've fled to live in other cities. But, I keep coming back. Partially because it's home, but mostly, I think, because there is something exciting about this city and the potential it has to be great).

I think there is a tendency to get overly-protective of downtown, especially in discussions about how it could be improved, and lose sight of what is really being said. Even though I might not agree with their reasons for staying away, people still avoid downtown like the plague. Downtown still suffers from the inability to draw the numbers of people it needs to establish a "critical mass" to become a sustainable live/work/shop/play/eat type of environment.

As much as downtown has improved over the years, it simply has not become the inviting or comfortable destination for many or most Houstonians and visitors. In order to achieve that, I believe there has to be something special, exciting, and different about it. Discovery Green is a great start. So, but to a lesser extent, are the sports venues. I was sure hoping the Pavilions would be the thing that generated enough activity to gel that section of downtown, and then create a ripple effect. Whoops. It's a shame the Pavilions isn't overlooking Discovery Green. Then, I think it might actually start attracting small retailers interested in the throngs of people circulating through the park.

My point is, I think there are actually some really wonderful ideas and insights in this thread. I think it would be a mistake to write them all off, even if many of them are veiled in barely intelligible rants.

The scope of this project is pretty huge. In general, this building is supposed to link the entire "campus" together, add parking, add exhibition space, add a library, add community features, "bring Hermann Park to the Sculpture Garden," etc.

High expectations, as there should be. I just hope we can get some awesome green walls! Well, and a cool, functional building. And, better sidewalks, and good dining options...

This is an intense competition that I participated in while in grad school. This year ULI and Hines chose the post office site downtown and its many proposed linkages. The winners should be announced soon

http://www.udcompetition.org/

P.S. forgive me if this has already been posted.

#5! Snohetta`s design. It`s simple, beautiful, and timeless, I think. Although I like SHoP`s design (#1), it has a bit of a cheese factor to me. The others I feel are just okay.

You don't know what you're talking about. 1) The extent of the City limits largely preclude the possibility of new greenfield development except in areas that have been stunted by blight for decades. 2) It is the City's effective policy to annex any commercial property that gets built in their ETJ, but not residential neighborhoods; this is to tax non-voters on the value of the property and to obtain sales taxes from residents to whom the City is not required to provide services. 3) Furthermore, when a developer comes along with a plan for a decent-sized subdivision in a part of the incorporated City that does not have infrastructure, the City's policy is to make the developer form a new in-City municipal utility district. In so doing, the City taxes the new subdivision to pay for everyone else's infrastructure, then makes them also pay for their own infrastructure on their own.

Man, TheNiche, you must be buds with the good 'ole Billy Burge and all his associates that developed Cinco Ranch; former Mayor, Lanier; the Grand Parkway Association; Texas State Highway Commission; Ed Emmett; and the North Houston Association, just to name a few, to believe all that. I wish that were the way it worked. Sadly, our tax dollars (a little under $10 Billion just for a few of the major projects) have gone into road building and all sorts of other infrastructure improvements that, in turn, fund private suburban and greenfield development. You are correct, the City is not responsible for all of it, but it all comes out of the taxpayers pockets, whether it`s the City, the State, or Federal Stimulus money. Imagine what $10 Billion could have done for Houston inside the Beltway:

1. Entire Buffalo Bayou Master Plan, estimated $5.6 Billion

2. Entire light rail system, estimated $3 Billion

3. City-proposed Astrodome renovation and redevlopment, estimated $1.35 Billion

The Houston Pavilions is a monumental disappointment, in my opinion. The architecture is weak, the orientation backwards, and the public subsidies mostly wasted. I have to admit, though, I was excited and hopeful before it was built that it would make a sizable and positive impact downtown.

Even though it was the mid- to late-2000's and investing in bad real estate finance was en vogue, I don't believe the City (or County, in the case of HP), should have given any subsidies to a shopping complex with a very suspect, at best, pro forma, without, at the very least, tying them to certain performance, i.e. outward-facing orientation of retail storefronts, especially along Dallas St., the use of standard retail window glass that's much more transparent, and more and better landscaping. 

My point on the PPP/public subsidy issue is twofold. 1. Houston needs more public sector involvement to adequately transition to being a denser 21st Century city. But, 2., our current planning department and other governmental agencies that have been in charge of making decisions on the use and conditions of the public's money in regard to development projects have been pretty impudent.

RedScare, you're probably right that we likely won't be seeing many new public-backed projects in the near future. 

Inevitably, though, Houston will need PPPs and public subsidies, as any major city has and does, for many of the large-scale projects it wants to build so that Houston can "transform into one of the next great global cities of the future." I would prefer a department of qualified planners informing those decisions rather than what we've had, which has given us El Mercado, HP, and all the soon-to-be built communities along the Grand Parkway. 

No government agency can be perfect, and there will always be mistakes, but a better, beefed-up planning office with actual powers and cojones and the legislative ability to help create and plan strategic city-benefiting projects is far better than an anemic department, like the one we have now, that has been given close to no official authority over how the city takes shape. 

It's an interesting and challenging time in the city's development. Houston is evolving from a place with almost endless land and a laissez-faire attitude towards development and policy to a city where density is starting to demand a different way of thinking, planning, and building. I think it's time to start acting like a big city where transparency is required for the public sector's involvement in development. I applaud Mayor Parker's efforts with Metro. I believe a similar standard should be set for the planning dept.

As for lighting, I think it's pretty straightforward. Map an area where certain signage and lighting would be allowed (the zone in downtown and Midtown where parking isn't required makes sense) and let the landlords do the rest. If a building owner wants to put an electronic billboard that reaches above 40' off the ground, let them. The market will dictate to them what works. And, I still think neon is cool, no matter how unpopular it is on this board. The no-neon ordinance evolved out of fear of sex businesses having neon legs flapping all around, etc. If you don't want pink neon legs, just restrict sex businesses from using neon, or something like that..

To your comment, TheNiche, about suburban developing receiving no help from the city government. The City is indeed involved with each and every greenfield suburban development, mainly through new and costly infrastructure, which is a heck of a lot more than is given to most infill developers.

Pleak, if Tokyo or Hong Kong had the sign ordinance Houston has, it still wouldn't have any lights or billboards on its buildings, no matter how many gazillions of people on the streets.

A strong public and private sector are not mutually exclusive. Conversely, well-planned city building is almost  always reliant on the heavy involvement of both.

Houston has just long done a poor job implementing public private partnerships, I agree. Instead, and worse, in my opinion, our city has acted as though the public sector were't involved and struck all sorts of backroom and closet deals - see all Wulfe deals, especially both Gulfgate and BLVD Place, just about every ex-urban master planned community, etc. 

Instead of turning a blind eye to the fact that major projects almost always rely on public sector involvement, let's give the planning agencies more visibility, and, therefore, scrutinize them better.

Houston's poor track record of PPP in the past should be acknowledged and learned from. This does not mean we should simply turn against them. Instead of shunning the public sector's involvement, let's make it more official, accountable and better scrutinized, and we should see better results. 

Name any successful major real estate project in the world that hasn't relied on the public sector's involvement to some extent. 

If downtown is ever going to successfully build the types of projects we've discussed on this board such as the Buffalo Bayou "river walk," major TOD, or any other major mixed-use projects, the public sector will have to be involved. Mind as well acknowledge its existence. In the past couple of years, Houston has started to kind of get it, I feel. See Discovery Green and Marvy Finger's One Park Place, Market Square Park, and the soon-to-be, I hope, IAC arts complex in Midtown. 

Pleak, I can't believe you don't think Houston is as dense as Hong Kong or Tokyo! But, what does density have to do with lighting? Im missing your point.

TheNiche, what type of lighting do you consider "gimmicky?" By Houston standards, it seems as though any lighting that is more involved/thought-out/decorative than the barest of bare-bones utilitarian falls into the category of "gimmicky."

In my opinion, add a little strategic lighting to a few key buildings, bridges, and landscaping, and all-the-sudden Houston is a much more attractive and inviting city.

I'd like to take a page from places like Singapore, New Orleans, Tokyo, Sapporo (in the winter), Montreal, Miami, Paris, or, even, Hong Kong. When can we get over comparing ourselves to Dallas all the time?! Houston should stop restricting landlords and let the market downtown dictate the lighting. If a building owner wants to sell space to an electronic billboard company, let them. Variety is a good thing (or, the spice of life or whatever). Blocks and blocks of blank walls is a bad thing. Or, even better, create a initiative with Central Houston and key landlords and encourage more and better lighting implementation.

Houston, especially downtown, needs more PPPs. A stronger and better-informed, well-traveled public sector should be able to guide our center city towards becoming a more visually-interesting, unique place - gimmicky and all.

samagon, I too have been lobbying Critical Mass to ride through the Galleria area. PM me an let's join forces in persuading them.

How nice would it be to ride with 2,000 other riders down Westheimer to Post Oak, stop for a moment, and then head north on Post Oak!