Nate99

Is that not the sump pit and housing for the related pumps?

I certainly have no idea, but the open "boxes" that you see in the most recent pics could be sumps, I guess. 

There is another, even more obvious, explanation...

A used piano store! GFR junkies rejoice!

From what I understand they had a contract for parking X number of cars that couldn't be broken.  This is the solution that allows them to demo half the building and build the new garage, then demo this structure and build the tower.

I'm leaning more toward thinking the building is a "go" because of this too. If there were not a compelling reason to start construction now, I would imagine that they would just delay any demolition until the old parking contracts expire. I guess the economics for the building still work with the added cost of this retrofit. 

what is that???

New ramp for the parking garage that they are making out of the Capitol St. side of the building. They are apparently demolishing the side of the building that currently contains the parking entrance first. 

This is an odd project to say the least. I'm trying to get my head around how the economics work that would justify that kind of new structure for a temporary solution. 

I guess parking garages make a lot of money. 

Is this cam on top of the Chase Tower?  You can see everything.

Looks like it is from an orbiting satellite, it's easy to forget how tall that building really is. 

The lights are on in the top floor. Perhaps that's where the construction company set up shop.

The webcam is up and running - this view should be very interesting over the next 36 months with a lot of projects being in the background while 609 goes up.

 

http://oxblue.com/open/Hines/609Main

That will also serve as a construction cam for the 500 Crawford apartments and the Texaco renovation. 

And since no one gets CSN Houston, we can use the link watch the Astros home games if the roof is open!

Didn't see this coming...

Demo will continue through the end of the year?!

I'm guessing that they're slow rolling it while shopping for tenants. 

Well cool, I'll take that as a green light to criticize. I suppose if the issue of zoning ever comes up, we can have a lively discussion then about property rights.

Indeed, look forward to it. 

On topic though, right there at the Milam facing corner of the garage closest to where the new building will go is a corridor to the elevators, on the other side of that corridor is the ramp going up. Getting garage access through the points shown on the rendering would require a new ramp and a new entrance to the garage off Milam if it did not enter the existing garage at higher level. 

Connecting the two structures might be the limiting factor with what they can do on the Milam side, if that's what they are doing. 

I actually think I am seeing something they haven't thought about, but you can defend them all you want, I think they'd be impressed at your perseverance on their behalf. One wonders if, in your world, a developer ever does anything that isn't totally rational and as good as it could possibly have been. In my world, developers are human and sometimes miss things; some have more vision than others, and some build things that are inconsiderate and detrimental to the area around them.

 

Making a public space successful is not just the "city's job," success of a public space depends on how development around it is oriented. And quit your hangup with people being "obligated," no one is obligating anyone to do anything, just voicing criticism.

 

Sorry to belittle your opinions but you jumped headlong into this thing this morning with your mini-essay. I still can't see why my criticism of a minor aspect of this building bothers you so much. We've had this conversation before, and I thought we had made peace and agreed to disagree.

I don't intend to be anything but peaceable about it, but we are just continuing to disagree at length. Writing "essays" tests my understanding about how I think through stuff and finding a contrary opinion gives me a chance to walk through my logic. Sometimes I change my mind as a result, so far I haven't here. 

Allowing people to do what they want with their property is really important to me, as is our right to criticize.

If someone wasted as much space talking about a project as we have here, I'd probably read what they have to say, so maybe you'll clue them in. At the end of the day, you're idea probably would make the area better even in my opinion; if changing it would be worth it to them, only they can say.  

This would have been a great post in 1970. The fact is Houston is building up around downtown, and younger people are choosing density and well-planned spaces, in Houston, Dallas, LA, Denver, Atlanta, etc. Market Square already has way more use and interest now than it did ten years ago; my only point is that minimal planning would keep this side of it viable for future use as that interest continues to swell.

 

No one agrees with my vision enough to fund it? That's funny, Hines is funding just such a vision a block away. I just can't get over the fact that you get so riled up when someone on an architecture forum thinks that a building should better address a public square. As I've stated before, if you never want to criticize anything any developer does and get upset when other people do, start the Houston Developer Cheerleading Forum. An architecture forum is going to voice criticisms.

They are building up now (with subsidies), but they did not in 1970 (or pretty much any time before now), that disproves the universal and timeless appeal of urban density and parks and squares. It depends on many factors that make it more or less attractive given other options that are now becoming less attractive.  Houston is growing, so everyone has to go somewhere. Making a public space nicer is the city's job, and good for them in making Market Square an attractive place again, but I don't see why that obligates anyone else to do anything a certain way. 

I'm not trying to shout you down, nor am I the one using terms like "sunshine pumping" and "brown nosing" to belittle your opinion; getting over your perception of my point of view or not is your choice. 

There is no "vision" being built. There is a park/square with different landowners all around it. Hines is funding a building a block away that they want to make money with, not developing a lively district. Street level retail goes along with that, just like it did for 1001 Main, BG place and the little deli in Houston House. I have more faith in investors than you. If it were highly likely that an approach to this building such as what you propose made everything better, I believe they would do it. There may be many permutations that they have to deal with that may make it not worth their while; or it could be in the plan yet, we don't even know.

If you are expecting anyone to give up value for the sake of the neighborhood, I disagree with that. If you think they are missing an opportunity to create more overall value, that's a fair opinion to have. I just doubt that you see something that they haven't thought about.  

Well stated.  All this relativism about "everyone likes different things" is nonsense; people all over the world prefer lively squares that are lined with restaurants and shops and full of people to squares that are on life-support because of careless, indifferent development.  Whether or not we end up getting a great, lively square in Houston depends largely on whether we have people with the vision to develop it.

Dense cities in countries with minimal private transportation ability or infrastructure lend themselves to "lively" parks and squares because there's nowhere else to go. Houston had the option to build up around downtown and did not. Ditto Dallas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, Detroit, Atlanta, Calgary or anywhere else where more land was available to move away from the density, tell me about their preferences.  We have thousands of people coming from countries full of lively squares that pay thousands in airfare and lodging to get to the Galleria to shop and go to restaurants. Tell me about their preferences.  

A  vision that no one agrees with enough to actually fund probably isn't that great of an idea.  To be a bit snarkily to the point to match your needlessly defensive tone, no one is buying it, literally.  If you think that people throw crap together for projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars without thinking, seems to me you could approach them with your fantastic ideas and take some of that free flowing cash for yourself and implement your vision at the same time. 

If you want to call that "developer brown nosing", so be it, I don't think much of your motivations either. 

Saw a big, high reach fork loader running around in the lot on this block, so I went over to check it out.  I saw this on a car's windshield. Looks like ground breaking will be right soon, today is the last day of the parking lot. 

I see you are mute interested in architecture than public planning. That is fine. This is more of an architecture forum anyway.

But some of us here are interested in architecture and how it fits in and enhances the area.

Because you are more visual, I guess when you travel you don't feel the life that other squares have. For me when I visit the squares are both the open space and the life and continuity that the buildings around gives to the park.

There's a balance there between the things and what goes on around them, everyone takes different things away from the same experience. 

You absolutely do not build and alter with ever single development. You build with amenities as you go along.

No one is talking about flooding the area with stores, but sheesh, they could build with convertible designs. The design doesn't have to support stores right now, but at least it could look like it.

Why not save money and build more easily convertible designs? I doubt that all these buildings will poke hoes in their facade once the activity picks up. That's why there are still blank walls around discovery green even thought the area is more active than 10-15 years ago

You lay out a good vision for what you hope to see, and I don't have a problem with that, but it seems like the people with the money don't agree with you. They view the trade offs in their designs and make choices. If you want to raise possibilities in the discourse of such things, that's all well and good, I just doubt that you're bringing up anything that the developers have not already considered thoroughly in their process. 

We just made the same point about OPP and empty space around DG. Finger is losing money because he planned for more street level retail than needed on that one and it still hasn't attracted anyone. 

Usually the term "ignore" in planning discussions means it doesn't make any attempt to add to or enhance the public space. Hines Market Square enhances the public space by putting lively retail on its corner. In the case of this building, having a pool where residents can look down and enjoy the square that their building otherwise deadens does not enhance the space. It ignores it.

Fair enough, I guess I see the buildings as being there to look at without much other interaction, so whether there is a bank or a coffee shop there it doesn't change what the area would do for me personally. I don't see any obligation for private property owners to enhance public space except to the extent they want to make it enticing for people to visit their retail tenants, and if they don't want retail tenants for whatever reason, that's their call to make. If that was their intention, I would think that they could find a cheaper spot to build it, presuming the market actually thinks that the square could be best utilized in the manner you envision. 

It cuts both ways though, there could be retail tenants there that made the park worse from any number of perspectives. Not that they'd want to put a methadone clinic down there, but they might if the market tanked. 

OPP has space for street level retail facing Discovery Green sitting empty. 

Do you really think this is a danger in Houston - pretending that we don't need cars?  Do you consider it a threat to the reign of the car in Houston if Market Square is developed as a real public square, oriented towards people rather than cars?

No, I just think it would be much harder to find tenants for the building and therefore a harder sell. An unnecessary design risk for those with money on the line.  

I don't think you can jump to a more purely pedestrian oriented place prior to filling in with options that are more in line with what most people are used to dealing with right now. Maybe after this and the Hines residential building are successful, someone can build up something more in line with what you are describing on the block between the square and the Chronicle building. 

This is ridiculous, the building itself is not bad. Simple design but classic look. What is bad is that most planners ignore gems like market square and the opportunity they have in a wonderful open space.

They may be taking more of the square's positive attributes for themselves, but I don't think they are ignoring it. That pool/party deck overlooking the square would be a really nice amenity for residents that takes advantage of the park/square.

They'll be (literally) a crapload more users of the dog park, that's for sure.  

So you are saying that maybe the auto entrance in the rendering doesn't go to the garage? That would seem strange, but I guess I hope you're right.

It looks like it would go in to the garage, but I was thinking it might have a ramp right off the street going up, and something would still fit on the ground floor closer to the garage itself. The garage is designed that way now with all of the gates, ticket machines and actual parking spots up on the second floor (or maybe higher). I'm not sure if it would even be feasible to connect in at the ground level.  They'll have to reconfigure it in any case with a tie in from Preston through the new building. 

Alternatively, it could go straight in to garage at street level with a well done porte cochere/lobby tie in under the deck above. Not as interactive with the square as all retail, but still pretty nice to look at and would give a cool view/atmosphere for the residents to step out in to. In any case, maybe this building would nudge someone in to putting something viable in the old Kim Son space that has been vacant for so long. 

Big towers change the look of neighborhoods around them, that's why I think "ignore" is the wrong word. It could certainly encourage/discourage more activity around the park depending on how you manage the street level stuff. 

Good grief man, I wasn't talking about you. It was a poster who was on here years ago called TheNiche.

I'm not asking for "aesthetic perfection." I'm asking that the building be placed against the square rather than against Louisiana, and that it have something more than a covered driveway on that side, preferably retail. Yes, it will absolutely help the square to have this - I do not follow your logic that because the garage looks ugly, the other half of the block should also ignore the square.. And it should not make much of a difference in terms of its chances of getting built.

Can the developer defenders admit that it really wouldn't be a hassle to shift the building against the square, and only a slight hassle to put retail at the bottom on that side?

I remember TheNiche, I liked his ideas and agree with his POV usually, so I'll argue it, probably poorly, in his absence. Adjunct professor, at best. 

I don't think a 40 story tower ignores anything around it, but that's just me. My point was more that there's no visual cohesion around the park and won't be unless you tear down something huge that is already far more bland and intrusive than this may or may not end up being.  I'm betting that the developers want to make it as good as they can and leverage the neighborhood around it, but their version of good might differ from yours or mine. 

But I really can not tell what will be placed on Milam vs. Louisiana in the pic. You can see the garage entrance off of Preston towards Milam, but that does not preclude some retail or something else actually facing Milam. Louisiana could just be windows. Maybe I missed something with more detail.  A well done covered drive that accesses the main lobby with a pool deck above it facing the park could be really nice too, I'd think. No need to design buildings in Houston to pretend that we don't need cars. 

Seems to my foggy recollection that there is a whole lot of nothing that could be imminent domained around Snook to avoid some trees. 

I never would have figured the traffic in the area would justify a bypass. I smell a subdivision developer with friends at TxDOT. 

I'm probably less worked up about it than you think, but you're just the latest in a long parade of people on here who have tried to stifle conversation with this "What're ya gonna do about it?" line. The worst of them answered every opinion with a professorial lecture on neo-liberal market economics, and you aren't nearly as bad as that. But I do think that a vigorous and healthy climate of architectural discussion and opinion ultimately does affect what developers do, otherwise they wouldn't keep doing things here that would never fly in cities that care more about the interaction between public spaces (like Market Square) and the built environment. 

 

The way this building is site planned, you'd think Market Square was on the Louisiana Street side rather than the Milam side. No developer in his right mind would try disrespecting an important square like that in Boston or New York or even Philadelphia; the public outcry would make his life miserable. And for good reason. Quality spaces are important to the public, and the public needs to guard them carefully.

Worst of them checking in. Hi guys. 

There are folks that think aesthetic perfection is worth sacrificing if it means getting the thing built or refurbished and leased out by people who do not share tastes with people on architecture boards.  Or maybe there is another architecture forum that is unanimous in its praise for this thing that the developers are reading, who knows. Still can't understand the hospital at I-10 and Gessner, that thing is weird. 

From my point of view, I think the worst of folks go out of their way to one-up the previous posters' hyperbole over a project for its imperfections when all any of them have at stake is their idea of personal visual pleasure that they will occasionally experience when the only actual real world alternatives were a run down dump or an empty lot. Expressing that opinion seems to do the opposite of stifle discussion, and I would not expect or hope for another result.

You have an opinion, good for you. Someone else had an opinion and an organization capable of building a 40 story residential skyscraper in downtown Houston. 

The Market Square garage is huge and full. How would a new design "respect" the park right next to a big slab of gray (to say nothing of the bank drive-thru, a surface parking lot and the Hotel Icon's parking garage that fill out the visual field from Market Square). The park has cool old stuff on two of four sides currently, I call this a net improvement. Even if something really fantastic were possible on the narrow side, it would be like wearing your finest tuxedo to your wedding while the best man wears his "I'm with stupid" tank top. The disrespect is already there and predates Market Square being anything but a bum camp. I can't really tell what the Milam or Louisiana sides would look like from what has been posted. 

But to your point about other cities, you can actually go on Google street view and find big chunks of architectural nothing (though not as bad as the garage) and oddly situated and stylistically dated buildings around places like Madison Square and Union Square in NY, Washington Square in Philly and Christopher Columbus Waterfront park in Boston. 

The disagreement between my point of view and yours is that you see the development of private property as inherently of public interest. To the extent you want to influence opinion on what the end results should be, I have no problem with that, but to the extent those efforts extend in to restrictions with the force of law, I don't like the power that gives to politicians. 

But by all means, get out there and argue for (or heaven forbid actually sell) your ideas and designs. It takes all kinds.