fernz

That looks like the Apache site. They must've hired Hines to manage the development.

Because that was the original height of the building. They added 15 floors late in the design due to the office demand.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

Just email the architect. That's what I did whenever I wanted to find out if the FAA regulations were true regarding the Chase Tower and why the observation deck was on the 60th floor

Why is it on the 60th floor?

I wonder at what point do they start construction?

They're probably waiting until they can figure out what the best use for the site is.

Isn't that the Hanover project?

I have a hard time believing the city couldn't work something out with McDonald's to convince them to either share the land or sell it under certain conditions...preferably under the condition that McDonald's still has a restaurant there.

Uh? Just let it go already...I have a hard time believing you can be this naive. Do you know anything about Houston's no zoning and intentional laissez faire attitude? Do you know anything about property right? For all the time you seem to spend on this forum, it seems like you've been living under a rock since the Ashby debacle began.

The lights were for their grand opening on Wednesday.

http://tinyurl.com/lwcg87w

I just think that there are some big oppurtunities being missed during this boom.

Keep in mind this building was planned and designed in 2010. There was no boom then, just crisis.

I just think that there are some big oppurtunities being missed during this boom.

Keep in mind this building was planned and designed in 2010. There was no boom then, just crisis.

Some garages are built into the building so it looks like it's actually part of the building. I wish they had done that here.

They did that on the Post Oak side.

Those are BIG letters on top of that building.

The best comp is the Cosmopolitan across the street. As ugly as it is, it sold quite well. People with money who are willing to put up with Galleria area traffic just for the perceived prestige are not necessarily rational buyers.

They're not sure if it will be residential or commercial, but "hopefully" they will start renovations in 30 to 60 days...good luck with that.

I'm liking it too, at least better than I used to. I got a chance to see the interior space BBVA is building; it is REALLY cool.

Slightly Better.

Slightly being the key word

No, the builders cut corners. The only lights are the signs that light up white at night.

BBVA only has 7 floors; the rest of the building is mostly available still; as is most of Skanska's building. I wouldn't expect phase 2 any time soon.

I don't like the green glass either, so 90's.

That's one of the reasons it's been so slow to issue decisions on condoms, pre-marital sex, and similar issues.

???

The Church has very clearly issued decisions on condoms (or any form of contraception) and pre-marital sex; they are just not the decisions that our self-centered culture of instant gratification likes.

On another point, one reason old churches were so ornate and full of interpretative art is that they were a tool to spread the teachings of the Church in a time when most people were illiterate and had no access to books.

"Explain to me again why modern cathedrals can't have elaborate designs."

I'll tell you why this Cathedral does not have elaborate designs:

But since the buttresses in this case are not providing structural support, then they are design elements. What on earth is absurd about using different design elements on buildings?

The dome on the cathedral, just like the buttresses at St Martin, are both components meant to evoke traditional architectural features of churches. There's nothing wrong with that. Whether they provide structural support is besides the point.

I disagree; it is not besides the point. There is a big difference between a design element that has a significance that still holds true (such as a dome or a cruciform floor plan) and a "design element" that is untrue to its form.

The dome is not there merely to evoke a traditional feature, it creates a special place in the church under which the liturgy takes place, where the word of God is spoken and where the Eucharist is consecrated. The buttresses used to have a very significant, albeit structural role. If you take that role away, they are just a meaningless, nostalgic, neogothic add-ons. They are no better than the "columns" on the side of Randall Davis' Gotham building in River Oaks.

I suppose it doesn't "need" buttresses any more than the cathedral needs its dome or rose window. In both cases they are just decorative elements that reference historic styles, only at St Martins the package on the whole seems far better executed.

That is not correct. Buttresses are not "just decorative elements". Unlike the dome or the rose windows, buttresses are meant to be a structural element, just like a column would be.

Having fake buttresses in a concrete and steel church is an architectural absurdity.

I want to like it, I really do, but somehow it just reminds me of a big self-storage unit.

It must be all that limestone, it's the same material all the self-storage units have...or maybe it's the stained glass.

This is correct... I just read that it will have ground floor retail... this was needed to get LEED certification.

Where did you read that? How on earth does having retail make a building more environmentally friendly? As far as I know, there isn't any LEED credit for mixing uses.

That actually has a real good sound to it.

Does anyone know if this new cathedral will be fully tiled or will some parts have like red velvet/burgundy carpet? I think the best thing to do is check the link and or just go park and walk up and see up front whats the status of completion.

No carpet, all stone. And it is full-size dimensional mud-set stone, no tile.

pardon the late entry...

The city's growth is not affected or limited by zoning or the lack thereof. A city will grow based on its economic growth. If jobs are being created, then new households will need new places to live - simple law of supply and demand. Look at the DC metro region, it has one of the biggest barriers of entry, yet it is one the hottest markets for RE development.

Setbacks are a big issue in Houston because (1) it's one of the few restrictions in place in the city and (2) it opposes certain neighborhoods' goals to have pedestrian-friendly, urban design. To achieve this, you need to build on the lot line, and therefore require a variance to override the setback requirement, which is in place in the entire city.

There is really no legal basis for the city to stop the development. But when you get the mayor on your side, hire a top-notch attorney to fight for you, and pay for an expensive PR campaign, you multiply the soft costs of development and marketing for the developer (who now has to get on the defensive), maybe to a point where the project is not feasible anymore...