arche_757

Agreed. Of all the buildings to copy, BG is one that should be left alone! Why not copy Pennzoil? Or Bank of America? Those would be much more interesting to reinterpret.

This design - like One Park Place and Hilton Americas - will grow into the skyline given time to "mature" a bit. I wish the design was a little different, but its fine enough for a smallish new addition. More of these will = more residential and more hotel development.

You got me! Apparently I didn't realize just how amazing Memorial Park is? I mean it has everything doesn't it? Everything under the sun. No need, or room for improvement, what-so-ever. Its 100% perfect just how it is! And you - even living in great Boston - must realize that it still has room for improvements. And its mostly a big jogging trail and recently done bike path that runs along two roads. So much potential to be such a fantastic park.... oh well. Its fine as is. Just like the rest of the city - no need for improvements its just fine.

Well... my Dad worked for Hines back in the 1970s, and helped market One Shell Plaza back when that building was planned, and he suggested (and they did) go up in a helicopter and photograph views from various office heights. So... that was way back when; remote control devices allow the same thing to happen today with much greater ease. I wouldn't doubt a company like Hines (who is very detail oriented) would leave something like that out. In fact, I imagine they're quite the bear of a client. Probably very demanding. And I would bet if they told the architect "We want a rendering looking out from the 45th and 47th floors" the architect would provide that.

The rendering shows the view from the upper floors to be taller than (or the same height as) One Shell Plaza roughly, and a little shorter than Republic Bank. Which are both taller than First City Tower. Makes me wonder if indeed the rumord 800' height was accurate, since the crown adds some addtional height? Guess we'll find out fairly soon.

I'm not too worried about other cities getting supertalls. Who cares. I would rather watch Downtown Houston transform into a 24/7 livable neighborhood. Give it time to fill in with residential, add more hotels to accommodate the growing demand for them + new businesses and I believe we're looking at a very different Houston in 2020 than what most of us imagined just a year or two ago. Imagine me being all optimistic for once?!

^^ Both are right. College Station, while a quickly growing metropolitan area (both in population and importance) is I'm sure pretty far off this groups radar. Remember - they studied 95 routes across the country before settling on Houston - Dallas as their best bet for a launch route for the system. College Station would still be best served by a slower - cheaper - regional rail connecting to Houston via Cypress.

I do think its taller than First City Tower - just off the height that was announced previously. I wish that last picture was higher resolution. Those are the type of renderings I like to see, the others are just purty looking illustrations. Man I love the Pilkington System! Pricey, but just a nice way to hang a sheet of glass.

You are not overly harsh. Developers - which is a loose term mind you - determine what happens. In this economy I would imagine a lot of the developers who are producing buildings of this scale are not very experienced, or have some grandiose over inflated opinion of their own design prowess? Sadly, we're getting 3-4 ugly/bad buildings for every decent looking one that goes up. Oh well, the nasty ones will be the first to be replaced reclad... in 15 years or so.

Not a clue, but a call to the right people at Centerpoint might answer your question.

The overall building design remained mostly the same though.

Indeed inflation happens... but the cost of construction has gone up too. Not just because of inflation, but because economies such as India, Brazil and China that were at one time backwaters are now spending big money on construction materials. The reduced supply of metal and concrete has caused construction costs to jump. I think a route through College Station might make sense - it is the largest metro area in Texas not on an interstate (if I'm not mistaken). So connectivity to Houston and Dallas would be a goodgreat thing for them. However, how many extra dollars would that add onto the entire project? Additionally perhaps it would make more sense to connect College Station to an east/west running line at some point? Or, like someone else mentioned - just run a regional rail link.

I don't see the Houston - Dallas line as a huge risk... perhaps a bit premature? Though, when this thing is built and operational I do think it will be the mid-2020s so with another few million living in both cities, who knows the state of the airline industry, and the cost of fuel for drivers - I think they'll hit this right out'a the park. I share Iron Tigers sentiments about wanting lines to College Station, Waco, Lubbock etc. (all the small towns + the big cities) but I do think that is anotehr day, much further down the road. It would seem that this current proposal has traction because of the Houston - Dallas draw. The number 4 and 5 largest metro areas. Rapidly growing, massive economies, big business ties between the two... seems only logical to place importance on this route. Given the ideal length where it will take less time to travel by rail than drive, or fly, and this is a shoe-in for a massive success. Its just going to cost billions to build, where it may have only cost a billion in the past, but then Southwest wouldn't be the nationally relevant airline it is perhaps if the original proposal had been completed?

1) Hard to say? Again, I'm not a plumber or electrician. 2) Architects should be able to work within a budget. I mean that's kind of what we're supposed to do! If you said: I have $30,000 to spend in phase 1 (which would be restroom and kitchen), then an architect can work with a contractor and develop some schematics and design plans and do some cost calculations. My firms principal is quite handy when it comes to developing a schematic plan and keeping it within a set cost for a client (for instance). Phase 2 might be another $30,000 (or some other figure) and that would be calculated separately at the time when that project starts off. My firm specilizes in historic preservation/restoration (though we do plenty of new "ground up" projects too), and we're pretty used to running projects in phases. You just need to find the right people to do the work for you.

Who wants Monday to follow Tuesday? Wouldn't you rather Friday follow Tuesday?

Well that cost a lot of money!

My numbers were based on total construction costs. Not on the individual line items of plumbing and electrical work. I'm not a plumber or electrician, but you might call someone - try two or three places to get a more accurate number and just explain everything in detail. Tell them you need rough numbers for the sale/purchase of the house. Hope that helps?

That depends on what you want to do. Right now you're probably looking at spending roughly $225+ per square foot. So, say your kitchen + bathroom are a total of 350 square feet = $78,000 in construction costs. That's just a rough estimate, it could be higher or lower depending who you talk to. DO NOT USE A CONTRACTOR THAT QUOTES YOU "I can do it fer $90 a square foot" unless he's a cousin or uncle you trust! Even then you might run. I should add: I'm an architect, and in 5 years we've seen the cost per square foot jump from $175 - 225. Contractors are busy, busy right now, so they're the ones in control (unlike in 2009-2011). Also, you might find someone who can do your work for $150 per square foot? It might even be high quality? Just call around, but I'll wager you'll spend at least $45,000 on redoing your kitchen and bath.

So - my take from the first comments on this page: There are 4 groups in this from what I can see: Group 1 (the enviromentalists - if that's the right term), Group 2 (the non-enviromentalists), Group 3 (the City), Group 4 (the silent majority who couldn't care and won't lift a finger either way). Of those groups I think I may side with the first group, as I believe they're well intentioned and the overall impact of doing nothing certainly won't hurt the bayou! Plus, I can see them leaning more towards my stance on the golf course... I'm not sure I understand the vitriol aimed at them though? Nothing wrong with being passionate about things. Land use in America is major issue moving into these upcoming decades - as big as water rights (since they play into each other). As we increase in population over the next 5 decades we will need more publicly accessible lands, not less. However, the balance is finding what to do, and what not to do. Anger is quickly misdirected even when well intentioned in this issues.

I do. My Dad used to play there and said it was a great course, hard to get into though. There are 165 Golf Courses of varying states and access in Houston, losing one is not a big deal. That said, I know its very unlikely. Golfers have money and pay money to play at that course. However, I wonder if the park breaks even with their fees? Golf courses are very expensive to maintain. I'm not too concerned about Becks Prime. Its too bad that the City of Houston didn't buy up most of the land between Memorial Park and Shephard Drive back before it had much developed on it and continue that as parkscape and include a nice cultural piece in Bayou Bend... Reality is the city did not. Oh well. At least the Bayou is getting some serious attention!

I was not clear in that I don't want Hermann and Memorial to be identical - just that I want Memorial Park to be a little more than 2 jogging paths, some mountain bike trails and a public golf course. As it can be much more than that. I tend to think that it would be easy to implement some new paths and even access to the bayou without spending too much money. I still want a continuous bike/hike path all the way along Buffalo Bayou to the Beltway.

I don't want Hermann Park II. You're mistaking the paths running parallel to Memorial Drive as the paths I'm talking about. I'm talking about creating new spaces in the park by covering over parts of Memorial and Woodway with north-south running parkscape and creating new north-south running paths, and submerging the roadway in a few places to do so. Now - I'll grant you that's an expensive and unlikely project (but this is a forum and not reality so I can ponder my thoughts and imagine what could be). As for the planning... I'd like to see some more naturally integrated parking lots - even some porous surfaces for them. More walk-paths througout and my idea for a great lawn on what is now a golf course. Central Park does have roads crossing it, but they are cleverly hidden for most of the way. I imagine Memorial Park as something more like Central Park - mostly "natural space" with a few man made areas including perhaps a water feature than can even run to the bayou (perhaps that can include a "launch"?). Again, not advocating for the trees to all get swept aside. You know what happened.

So you think its great that the one of the largest parks in town has on two of its ~4ish (since its not a rectangle) sides major freeways that not only form a border with the park, but offer zero chance at any residential or commerical ever having been developed next to the park? Personally I think that is just bad city planning. I will add - the park has its champions. Clearly people like it as is. I'm just saying it could be better if some issues were addressed. Again - I'd love to see the existing city golf course gone and replaced by a myriad of playing fields, lake, walking areas and the like. It would be like a park within a park. Think of the "great lawn" it could offer people of this city. I recall something about a masterplan being discussed years ago - and the golf course was mentioned as a potential casualty so maybe that's in the works?

I'm not sure what seems silly? Please explain. What I want: -A few more paths for hiking and biking. (I agree the dumpy bike paths that drop off 4' all over are not adequate hike paths) -Roads covered/lower in a few spots to allow greater continuity of the park. (Allow for TOTAL pedestrian access to the park in as many places as possible. Currently Memorial Park caters more to the automobile than to the pedestrian. I realize there's not a choo-choo running through the park, but we should be able to reduce some of the visual blight that is Memorial Drive and Woodway) -That railroad cutting through really does suck. No getting around that. (that railroad sucks, it cuts through Memorial Park, isolates Highland Village from other meaningful developments and is in general ugly - ugly - ugly). -One put-in for kayaks and the like on the bayou. Just one. (is that hard to visualize?) -Better overall planning for the parking and layout of public spaces, so much of what was/has been done at Memorial lacks real direction. (overall the park needs to be re-done in the same guise as Hermann Park. A masterplan that addresses the shortcomings and moves to remedy them would be great.) -Clean up the park. Its a mess. (I think removing much of the visual blight that is the roads bisecting the park in half would go a long way to helping here. That and cleaning up some of the underbrush - not ALL the underbrush, some of it.) Does that not make sense? You mean to tell me the park - as it is today - is 100% perfect? Needs zero work? If I could ever figure out a way to upload images from scans and the like on my computer I could illustrate what I'm talking about.

This is a city park, in fact its Houston's "other" city park aside from Hermann Park! Access to hike/bike paths in National Parks is better than what Memorial Park offers. I don't regret seeing undeveloped areas along highways, but this is a poorly planned urban park along a poorly planned stretch of freeway. Surely City of Houston planners could have anticipated people prefering to live by, and have access to a city park? You mistake my intent here. I say "Memorial Park is not nearly good enough" you think "He wants to have the trees cut down and open everything up" I dont' want to tear down the trees, I do want to remove some of the kudzoo like undergrowth and allow people perhaps 3-4 addtional paths through the forrest to reach the Bayou and be able to put-in a kayak or canoe, and also walk from Downtown to at least the 610 feeder roads right now (eventually to Beltway 8). That's what I want. Memorial Park as it stands is far less useable to anyone than what it ought to be.