fernz

I never said the buildings don't look good. The failing is in regards to the creativity of the architects. To come up with one design style and spread it around town is failed creativity.

Btw, your examples are mid rises, can't really compare. Sky house, Hanover towers, Chelsea st and OPP are all good looking high rises, yet they have very different styles.

I'm all for using local architects, but it would be nice if they were more creative. Three towers in close proximity from each other (Hines, Marquette and Trammell) and they all look very similar. Fail!

Five workers died during that buildings construction (which would shut down a modern building for months - maybe longer). Also during the Great Depression. The building was in a race too with Chrysler down the road - which in my opinion is a FAR superior design.

Also, this was during the Depression, as already mentioned. There was a large pool of cheap labor available, willing to do anything, even if unsafe.

This is on tv?

https://twitter.com/miyashay/status/458287953869955072

Knock out the targets and the Lowes and they just move further west and north. And guess who moves with them? THE PEOPLE. Leaving you precious land available for towers but no life.

It's the other way around. The stores go where the people are; "retail follows rooftops". People choose home location for many reasons, top of list are proximity to jobs, affordability and schools. Availability of retail does come into play, but is not a driving factor.

Trial is now over. Judge "expected to rule soon"

I don't think he's asking him to overturn a verdict. If I remember correctly, the verdict was that the developer should pay damages, and the judge in the case said he would decide whether the project should continue or not.

The best example is one park place. They have a huge pool deck, beatifully landscaped, and facing west to get maximum sun exposure. However, in my opinion, they should've have it facing discovery green to get much better views. The would still get some southern exposure.

Between this and developers "threatening" taller building if variances aren't granted; I think it's about time to put zoning up for a vote, again.

I agree that if this project is stopped it would be bad for developments in the city. This would definitely set a precedent that it doesn't matter if your project is approved and follows all the rules, it could be stopped at any time, even if you're willing to compensate neighbors for their problems. Why spend the time and money? Developers and lenders are by nature risk-averse - they will take only calculated risks, and price those risks into their proformas. This is not the type of risk that can be priced in.

If you don't want tall buildings in your cozy residential neighborhood, then vote for zoning. Put up or shut up.

For the record, I also think it makes no sense to build this tower in this neighborhood, but based on our city's laws, that is completely irrelevant. In fact, that is exactly what we asked for when we voted zoning down. We collectively said we want to be able to build whatever we want, wherever we want. That also means our nehighboors can build whatever they want. 

And this is not just about residential buildings in residential neighborhoods by the way. What's to keep business owners in midtown stoping an apartment building because construction will affect business? In fact, if neighbors can band together to stop a building because of unwritten rules, what will keep a bunch of apartment owners from blocking a new apartment building they see as competition? Or a new apartment building for middle-income families that could drive down the rents for neighboring luxury rentals? This list could go on and on....

So we've confirmed that the owners of ES do NOt own the parking lot near their hotel?

If they are planning on throwing up a 30+ building on that small part of block 98 then they can definitely make something work next to ES

They don't need to own the lot to control it, there are other ways to make sure they keep the parking and/or the views. They can have a long-term lease, or even own the air rights.

Naviguessor, succinct, yet to "the point".

Will the parking set back be taken up when they widen post oak?

My thoughts exactly. Although the East side of Post Oak might be cheaper RE.

That went up quickly!

one of the nicest mid-rise appartments  

Me thinks the article didn't have the new renderings yet. That rendering has been floating around since 2008. No reason to think they spent money coming up with a new rendering just to end up going with the old one..

I hope you're right....however, the magazine where the article comes from has a full-page ad from Thor Equities, so obviously they have a working relationship. No reason why Thor wouldn't give the magazine the latest renderings; it's free publicity.

That seems premature

The article sounded convincing to me. So I could be wrong though. 

Yes, but it did not include the cool renderings though...too bad, I really like that design.

Although the model probably is to scale, you are seeing it from a perspective you won't experience in real life. The rendering is probably to scale as well, and you will see it like that if you look up from right across the street. But most of the time, it will look like something in between.

Seriously, couldn't they take the ladders out before the mayor's visit?

It's cool, although it looks like something right out of the 80's. I'm afraid it will look dated and out place in just a few years.

Looks like something started. More than likely it's the rendering in that article.

So maybe I wasn't wrong about the feeling I had...too good to be true.

I think you have this somewhat reversed. I would say:

 

"The more attractive Houston becomes, the denser and more expensive."

 

Its increasing attractiveness is due to a number of factors including a strong economy and a variety of quality of life improvements. Then the feedback loop kicks in and the denser, fancier developments make it even more attractive and so on.

 

The first thing I'd say about the preponderance of "luxury" developments is that luxury is not a regulated term. Whatever the price point, developers call it "luxury" to make it sound more attractive.

 

Secondly, developers aren't creating the demand for expensive apartments, they're responding to it. As long as there's demand for expensive apartments they might as well build expensive apartments since I'd imagine they're the most profitable.

 

Escalation in overall rent prices and the negative impact on housing affordability are definite concerns, but I haven't seen where the "affordable unit" requirements you mention have solved the problem anywhere. Ultimately, housing prices are due to simple supply and demand. The market will respond to demand if it can. For the city to require affordable units while simultaneously stipulating excessive amounts of parking would be asinine.

 

Right now, to build a one-bedroom apartment of, say, 800 square feet, a developer must build 1.33 parking spaces. Including aisle area, that's an additional 400 square feet or more. So very roughly speaking, that apartment will cost 50% more than if it didn't come with a parking space. Property managers could unbundle the rent for the unit from the rent for the parking space, but right now there's no incentive to do that when the regulations create an oversupply such that the free market price of a space is zero.

 

Developers provide the exact number of windows, closets, toilets, cabinets, and treadmills they think they need to make a project viable. Government-mandated parking is unnecessary and leads to poor urban outcomes and decreased affordability.

I agree with most of your points, however...the apartment does not cost 50% more just because the area for parking is 50% more. The parking space is much cheaper to build than the apartment space - no finishes, no walls, no plumbing, no air conditioning...

Also, at least in downtown, the developers are building only the amount of parking they think is necessary to make the project viable. Downtown (and a few blocks in Midtown) have ZERO parking requiremetns. Even outside downtown Houston, most cities require less parking (at least for residential, retail is another issue) than what demand warrants. I've worked on dozens of apartment buildings, and not once did we have to build more parking that was required by the market.

I should hopefully be getting a new camera next week so that there's better quality but this tower of scaffolding is going all the way to the top now if y'all can tell:

Maybe they'll instal a trash chute for the interior demo.

light rail= transit= helps people visiting without cars get around

residential= helps create a vibrant downtown= makes houston more appealing= PR, basically

That's backwards logic. The Super Bowl and the city benefit from those projects, but unlike the hotels, those projects don't get a huge benefit from being complete by the Super Bowl.

This is exactly my thought. This is just a whole lot of effort to go to for nothing. So much money being spent for the garage arrangement.

Also,Shanska build the Uptown / Galleria building with 0 tennants... and then they sold it / is now leased. They may have a similar attitude with this building. 6 Houston Center may have adopted the same philosophy. 609 Main probably has someone interested already.

This is off topic, but a Hines employee told me that a building taller than Transco (Williams) is planned for the Galleria...................

Keep in mind that it is much easier for Sanska to build on spec than it is for other developers. Stanska doesn't borrow any money, they just invest profits from the construction side of the business.

If you're borrowing money, you have to (a) convince the banks that there's little market risk, and ( be willing and able to start paying off the loan as soon as the building is done, even it it's empty and it generates no income.