GovernorAggie

Unfortunately, you're going to have to wait until the next Census. I myself am convinced that a little bit more of convenience-oriented retail would be well-received, but national chains and many developers rely on demographic projections to figure out where a good investment is. And although updates and projections for 2007 take into account that there are new rooftops, they absolutely fail to account for the change in household income levels. It just looks dismal right now.

That stinketh. So even the American Community Surveys won't help? I thought that was supposed to fill the gap between the census years.

These look great! I hope to be a buyer real soon on the East End. I'd like to second the question on the noise though. Is it possible to have provisions built in?

The entire near east end of downtown could use more shopping. I guess it's a chicken-and-egg situation, though.

Did anyone attend this?

So will it become the Houston Chronicaluminum Building? Maybe they will surprise. Then again...maybe not.

I think I will be glad when we get a newer Federal Courthouse. The GSA really seems to be making some statements with its more recent architecture.

Houston has something of a two face look to it's skyline... from the west it looks sparse and very modern/futuristic, but from the east, it looks like a more traditional city. One Park Place is a good integration of those ideas.

Agreed. The east just looks powerful to me--"traditional" is a good word for it. The west looks very clean and even a little peaceful in a way to me.

EDIT: Now, that I think about it, I believe one of the I-45 pipe dreams DOES include going underground from the I-10 interchange, under the bayou, and coming up somewhere in the south side of downtown, probably before the US 59 interchange.

I think 45 was supposed to come back up and go over the Bayou. There was supposed to be a grand, signature bridge (cable stayed) to go over the Bayou.

Some interesting info on the upcoming Les Givrals on Main Street Square. I emailed them asking when the new downtown location would open and this is what they said.

So maybe they are the ones goiing into the spot that's being improved next to the dollar store.

Also, is it just me or was it encouraging to see them say they were "outbid" for a downtown retail space?

Just imagine low mesquite trees and short light brown buildings everywhere. I used to live in the area. A freeway passes right through it and they actually built a nice large new airport that's a joint civilian/military airport (http://www.flykilleen.net/) .

Bell County is a weird place, fwiw. I think there's almost 300,000 people there, but you wouldn't know it. The area is like one huge suburb--but nice Hill Country scenery.

FWIW, the old Shamrock leasing trailer is gone.

No. Where did that come from? I've lost money and made money on real estate.

Why do you seem to support the developer's rights 100% over the homeowners'? Have you ever invested your own hard-earned money into a piece of property? Not a car or anything that will lose value, but a home for you and your family? Have you worked for years at a job that you aren't passionate about because you need to pay the mortgage for a house in a decent neighborhood while your kids are growing up? If you have, you would expect to at least not lose money when you sold your home. That's a reasonable expectation, even for a "leftie."

Would your landlord be happy if a 24-hour self-storage facility, for example, went up next to the house you're living in? Would he shrug his shoulders, and say "oh, gee, that's the risk I took."? Would you try to get out of your lease if it happened, and then when your landlord said no, shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well, that's the risk I took."?

And have you driven down Bissonnet to see where this is? Can you honestly tell us you think it's a good thing to construct a 23-story tower in that particular location?

I personally think there are several better locations (as everyone else has said). However, I don't think you can say that this is "developer" versus "homeowner". They are both landowners, and it seems to me that in the City of Houston, they are equals. The "developer" also worked hard to get the income possible to buy the land and build on that spot. It's not the developers' fault that he has the money to do this project and his upcoming new neighbors don't. When Houstonians speak of defending their individual property rights--they are also speaking for their neighbor's right to do what they want with their property--no matter if the neighbor is an individual or a company. To think otherwise is hypocrisy or admitting, "oh, we didn't envision this." It may be an unintended consequence, but a consequence nonetheless.

Speaking of--has anyone gotten the Houston Property Rights Association's views on this whole issue? If they don't support the developer, then they are not worth the paper that their name is written on.

People seem to forget (or be ignorant of) the fact that had this been a zoning case (and I'm not advocating zoning in the most traditional sense of governing uses--but in a sense of form), EVERY neighbor would have been notified within 200 feet of this property that the developer was applying to construct a building larger than the surrounding buildings (which would have resulted in a density designation change from the rest of the area). These same neighbors would have thrown a fit, but to the planning commission in a PUBLIC, recorded hearing, who would have then turned the development down or forced them back to the drawing board. People automatically think of something like zoning as the City making decisions for neighborhoods and property owners from an ivory tower overlooking everyone else. This is not the case. There's a reason why other cities have "rezoning battles"--it's because of the same issue as Southampton. The difference is that HOA dues would not have to go to pay for Rusty Hardin to fight a winless battle--instead it would have been their taxpayer dollars (that they already pay) at work through planning department employees and planning commission public meetings revealing development plans before they are done deals.

This development is, for what it's worth, a done deal.

Enacting zoning in Houston indeed is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Whatever is standing right now, where it is, will still be standing right now where it is after zoning gets passed, if it does.

The lack of zoning has saved this city from being monopolized by Californians and northeasterners who can sell a modest house for a mansion's price in our reckoning, then buying a (Mc)mansion here. They can still do that now, but if the risk of a KFC opening the other side of their fence worries them too much maybe they'll take the monopoly money somewhere else. The almighty dollar is still king in American urban planning, zoning laws or not.

The option of assigning density levels (not use) is about the only thing this city could do at this point and have any impact, and even then if they zone high-density projects out of, say, Southampton after the highrise on Bissonnet goes up, well, you still have a highrise on Bissonnet.

And that's all that should matter, IMO. Uses aren't as big a deal to me as are the form and impacts of a development on the surrounding area.

^^^^^^ I thought that would get some of you guys to fall off of your collective chairs!!!!!!!!!!

What's SO WRONG about saying the B word? I have never seen anyone so scared and scarred by the late 80's bust as you HAIFers. Maybe i am trying to invoke the construction, architectural Houston gods to SHOW US SOMETHING. Talk about cautious..........sheesh. Should we recompile a list of what's happening and will happen regarding Houston construction over the next 3 years? Would that sway you at all? Oh ye of little faith.

The signs are there OR do you feel i am jinxing it just by saying it?

m.

Tell me about it. Worrying about using the word "boom" certainly brought nothing to the city. Embrace that Houston is trying to step into the BOOM times of this decade. There. I said it. BOOM! BOOM! B-B-B-B-B-BOOM!!!!!

musicman, spit out your metro haterade. The conclusion I got from the story is that metro is not changing its policy, nor should it. I also think that the toll authority should not have changed their policy. As a person who worked for a local (city) government in another state, I heard the whole "I'm a taxpayer...you work for me" type stuff. Well, here's your quarter back for the next twenty years of my employment, because that's about all it's worth.

People use the "my taxdollars" argument because they look at it as if they are entitled to make certain decisions (really meaning the ones they want to and/or aren't too lazy to figure out). At its basest level, the argument says, "hey, I pay into this common pot". People also argued on wayne's blog that metro employee discounts are different from airline or restaurant employee discounts because those entities are private. That's garbage.

Here's why...if I flew to Washington tomorrow, let's say the flight cost me $500. Now, does the flight actually cost $500 per person for that flight? No. Am I costing the airline $500 to carry me to D.C.? No. Really, the cost to hem is probably more like $400, and they get say $80 of that for profit and the other $20 to do what they wish--including hiring and retaining talent, using incentives such as offering free flights to employees. *gasp* you mean I am paying for an employee's FREE flight on the airlines? Yes. We don't think the airlines have some magic account that covers employees flights, do we? Of course not. We, the passengers (or shall I say, the investors in the airlines' pot called 'revenue') cover those flights.

I think airlines are an intersting example because if I remember correctly, they were bailed out after 9-11 to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars by...you guessed it...your and my tax dollars. And they haven't refunded us the money. Instead they are making increasing profits--which partly go to cover employee flights. Should we be outraged? No. It just comes with the territory.

By the way, maybe Judge Emmett could be rethinking the knee jerk reaction of cancelling toll authority employees perks of free use of the system. I hope they get to use it for free. We are delusional if we think that government employees of certain bodies can't use some parts of it for free. If a water company employee gets a discount on their rates...fine. If a municipal utility employee gets a discount--fine.

Let the construction begin! Maybe they can make it 43 stories instead!!!

Work continues to be done on the back half of this place. It looks to be home to a new retail spot. Frames are up for a new store front. I hope it's not Super Stop relocating, though--or worse yet a pawn shop or check-cashing place. I really can't think of any other type of business wanting to share a building with the Main Food Mart...then again, it IS Houston and juxtaposition is the order of the day. With that in mind it may be a Tiffany's

i moved a couple posts from another thread to this one - just above yours.

i think the canopy is just for safety

You know, this is just pitiful. Do nothing about the building, but construct a pedestrian protection barrier since we know that the building is a piece of junk. Is think how to get around safety codes? Is that what an absentee landowner should do to a slum property--just build a gate around it so no one gets in?

Unless I'm missing something, this would be the tallest hotel in Houston, right? Or at least one of the tallest.

It's looks like the Astroworld site, but I think that this is one of DPZ's sites for Frank Liu, and IIRC, he doesn't own the site, but some group out of Conroe does.

Great story! They also said a La Quinta was under consideration near MMP. I'd like for it to be nice and tall--but if all it does is take up an empty parking lot, it's a small victory in my eyes.

If the developer owns the property, let him build what he wants, right?!! Houston at its finest!

I think that travel to Abuja should be ok. It's Lagos that's the risk of your own life and well-being. It's too bad because Lagos was going to be one of the world's next great cities. It had a long-range plan (completed by the Wilbur Smith and Associates consulting firm) that included land use, LRT, and so many other great enhancements. And then the military took over the country and used Lagos as its pilfering central. I have friends from Lagos and while things are looking up, they have a LOOOOOOONG way to go! They are also building a new domestic terminal at their airport and are building new subdivisions and master planned communities left and right--just like what you'd see in Houston. Lagos is also getting a rather surprisingly large number of 5-star hotels.

By the way, Lagos went from like 300,000 people in 1950 to (by some counts) anywhere from 7 to 15 MILLION today!!!!! Depending on the agency, it's also predicted to be among the world's 10 largest cities by 2010 (IIRC).

Order or none, growth that fast is bound to throw things out of whack.

Saw some people doing work on this place today. The blank yellow wall between the entrance and the Sakowitz was opened revealing the empty space inside, and the workers seemed to be putting up some newer type of tile in some places. Maybe it's something...but chances are, it's nothing.

The good thing is that airports (due to airlines, it seems) tend to follow through on their plans--no matter how long they may take.