arche_757

I gave LA as an example - not Vegas. Don't get angry! Don't yell - use big words to convey a point but not a whole sentence. And why would we want asses in the seats? We want people in the seats not donkeys! Obviously Light Rail here has failed (that's a pretty clear statement you made - did I miss the point?). You ignored my MARTA start-up question. Clearly there are dense pockets in ATL now, but when Marta started how many pockets were there? Houston suburbs will be prime areas for transit orriented developement. A commuter rail line to Cypress needn't have 30 stops, more like 5-7 so how hard would it be to restructure transit to feed into that line? Probably so hard we should just turn transit development over to NASA. Would it be impossible to have a rail station in/around the current park and ride stations? I think of a lot of things everyday - I seem to have trouble grasping how hard it would be for a metro area of 6.2+ million to have rail transit? That's one of the things I fail to see. I'll ask this: How many of DC's METRO riders actually walk to the stations versus driving or taking a bus or carpool? Speaking about the "suburban" stations. Because if transit only survived off of commuters who walked to the stations then it would fail in 95% of the cities that currently have it. NYC and maybe Inner Chicago would thrive, everything else... fail. Part of my job is to be creative and imagine possibilities... transit isn't about getting riders on it today but building so that when tomorrow comes riders/commuters have other options. A heavy rail/commuter rail system in Houston might take a decade to reach full ridership. It might? I'll bet if gas hits $5 a gallon and people have a chance to use it rather than spend $150 dollars per fill-up on the vehicles they will gladly use it. Look, if you really love rail you would be clamoring to have it here even if you and I were the only people to ride it and we held each others hands in jubilation every day. How many of Metro's Red Line South riders use the park and ride lot? I did. It was almost always full when I had the ability to use transit to get to/from work.

What is your definition of commuter rail? Are you talking "heavy rail"? I think any transit system would need to mature a little before certain strategic numbers are met - perhaps some lines would take longer to fill in, others would be more successful more quickly. I think a commuter rail line from Cypress - Downtown (with well reasoned stops) would be a huge success. HUGE. The need for larger park'n rides and parking lots at many of those stations would be there, but they would still get used. Also, Atlanta has MARTA - which isn't perfect, but I'll wager Atlanta (in 1970 or whenever the first line opened) didn't have the desired density throughout the city for it to be an overnight success. And my opinion on this - quite a few more people would take the rail than use park-n-ride. Rail trumps Bus any day for most commuters (as an idea) so many would probably use it that wouldn't give one thought to using the buses now. Just my opinion. And argue all you want about Galveston Bay/Gulf as boundaries but that's why Houston is growing the way it is. Denver has mountians ONLY on the west. Chicago has its "left shoulder" (using your example) on the lake, everything else is endless prairie. LA has the Pacific on the west, and some mountains (which its grown OVER) and nothing much between it and Vegas. Point being - a lot of cities have less geographic constraints than what we perceive, most can grow in at least 2 directions as much as they can. Atlanta and Dallas have virtually no real geological/geographic boundaries. NYC, Seattle and San Francisco (but NOT all of the Bay Area) have land issues that have forced them to be more creative in how they grow.

I hope its not a giant inflatable gorilla! Those are so tacky! Really though, if there is something added to the top, hopefully it is something that scales nicely to the building. A 20 floor building with a 5 floor architectural element would probably be too bold. I'm also hoping its not a "crown of thorns" like 3333 Allen Parkway has! DZ Bank hq in Frankfurt am Main worked ok...

Image does matter. If the idea got out that Houston - despite our flaws - is actually a nice town, we would see benefits to that message.

No really, look them up. Ziegler Cooper actually has a website. You would have found the buildings listed below (or above) if you had done that already. It would have taken you ~1 minute to look that up. I figured most people on here usually do look up Houston firms frequently just to see what each office is doing. http://zieglercooper.com/urban-residential/

Indeed. Industry trumped everything. Now, environment trumps everything. Odd how we have changed. I wonder if we still built willy-nilly nationwide exactly what our economy.

Google them.

The ultimate job in Houston would be the demolition crane operator for the destruction of the Central Bank Building in Midtown. Talking about something swinging one of these:

Nice, but old. No Anadarko-Deuce. I would hope the Woodlands developers would realize the need to build a few buildings taller - 25 10 floor buildings really gets cluttered! I would think a building the scale of Austin's 4th and Congress Building would be perfect for The Woodlands, plus some sort of architectural embellishment at the crown would be nice as well. *but probably not that old!*

^very true. Its trying to establish the industry and still leave wetlands and scenic open space + potential land for residential along busy waterways that's the trick. Galveston Bay is the largest inlet this side of Chesapeake Bay (I do believe) so there is plenty of land for all, I don't think the refineries needed to be clustered so tightly along the shoreline. Perhaps better foresight into seeing Houston becoming one of the worlds largest industrial centers back in the 1930s or 1940s would have helped our "problems" now? Of course I'm kind of the opinion that what we have - massive industrialized shipping/refining basin - is a good problem to have!

Excellent find! I think the comment "...Houston will just keep chugging along, warts and all..." sums up our city perfectly. We're far from perfect - and hardly the perfect example of what a city should be. However, we don't seem to care. While we are staring at numerous problems, some day perhaps we will address transit (be it bus, rail, portals etc) and also public spaces (bayou's, Galveston Bay, Katy Prairie etc) we have time - and importantly space - to address these issues. All said, we do indeed need a stronger local media.

^Thanks for the updates.

Still - they are there. And those shoreline communities are a major part of what makes Houston unique and different compared to Dallas or Oklahoma City.

Well, the Texans probably pay most of their salaries, so they talk more about them. The afternoon show hasn't been very good (in my opinion) since before Josh Innes was there. I never listen to them, only the morning crew and sometimes the midday when I'm doing errands (if I have any to do).

We have natural boundaries - that big body of water called "Galveston Bay" and then there's the "Gulf of Mexico" amazingly large natural boundaries. I'm tickled by the people who have just said "can't ever see how commuter rail will work here..." Really? Ever? In history? Amazing! So Houston will always develop the way its developing and will never see the density needed (anywhere in the city) for heavier rail. We should just resign ourselves to the automobile and be done with it. It will be the death of this city - traffic will stagnate this town to the point growth will become impossible. I seem to also forget that LA and New York have ALWAYS had thousands of people per square mile. I mean - its amazing - they just "POOF" popped up overnight and were all dense and stuff!

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.

I do understand what you're saying: I'm going to nitpick.... [Denver, LA, Chicago all have a unique natural feature. Austin does not. The "hill" country is pretty, but hardly worthy of the definition of beautiful. And Austin's now nearly dry man-made lakes look terrible, Towne Lake (or whatever nonsense its called) is decent, but at the expense of the Colorado River and Lake Travis (and others). Denver would be ugly as sin if not for the Rockies 50 miles away. Chicago shares the great lakes with: Milwaukee, Detroit (sorta), Cleveland, Buffalo (sorta) and Toronto.] ...end nitpicking The most glaring problem with Houston is: A) Not close enough to Galveston Bay. and That Bay is soooooooooo heavily industrialized (at our expense - at the nations benefit) that its hardly scenic any more. Unfortunately industry has made Galveston Bay its playground. Yes we've grown rich off that industry but perhaps it could have been contained a little better? Who knows.

Maybe it won't be the greatest urban park in the world, but a vast improvement over what is existing. It is a start. Besides, after this one is finished why not move to reworking other bayous? Perhaps some will always be channelized but why not try to move towards a more natural state? Braes (with all its flood control improvements) would be a start. All that would be needed is some sort of linear line connecting the two (thinking about the railroad tracks that bisect Memorial Park and form the western edge of Highland Village). If some day those could be worked into a sort of park frontage (assuming eventually the trains will relocate - many years from now - or be submerged!)? Wishful thinking I know. Maybe an elevated park could be built to allow walkers/joggers/bikers ? Would be neat. Again, wishfull thinking though!

Ha! I read the dates in reverse... March 13, 2014 rather than March 14, 2013! Oh well. Still interesting.

The frequency is probably too great for the LRT? Or, the whichever train company owns those tracks is too concerned that Metro will mess up their schedules by inserting crossing tracks? Who knows? I'm still awaiting word on just how much of a deal this bridge/tunnel would be for this project. I'm thinking it's not as big as some say. At this point I would expect East End people to simply want this project done and have access to rail sooner than later?

How is it like One Park Place? Commercial vs Residential. At worst this tower will have ~250' height on the OPP and a significantly larger per floor footprint.

Retail infill would be better than a Ritz here. Put the Ritz some other place. Why is this being discussed, is this a real option? Is the Ritz possibly coming to this site?

Here, here! When I worked downtown I had the option of using Light Rail or driving (or bus - but those take so long on some routes they are very inconvenient). I decided to use Light Rail until I got to a position where I needed to drive more to-from work due to needing to get to another part of town not on the rail line. I also think people forget how quickly the Red Line passed its projected 1-2-3 year ridership goals in the first months/year of operation. I have little doubt other lines will do so as well, whether or not we have the "desired" density for transit in all areas. Undoubtedly there will be some stations with little use, and others that are almost always busy.

And Vancouver, Canada doesn't have a freeway or interstate equivalent in the city core, but it surely does outside of that area - and that's sprawl by any definition of the word! That's also Canada. I can't think of one city in the US over 50,000k that doesn't have a freeway at least some sort of bypass or other divided highway that hasn't allowed development out of the urban zone and into the surrounding countryside. Maybe could argue the Aspen area or Santa Fe? But I think even those have some form of freeway nearby (Santa Fe is off an interstate).

^Look to Harwin Drive and that neighborhood. Highest density in the metro area - no rail transit. Sprawl is something that came about (in its current guise) due to the freeway systems we have implemented. One can of course argue that sprawl is/has always been - which it has - but there is something to a freeway helping developers access cheaper land further out that has seen the likes of Katy Mills (a great example of wanton sprawl ~15 years ago when it was built). Plenty of demand for that mall closer in, but land was cheap and developers jumped on the band wagon and built it way - way - way out. Of course now we have some sprawl all the way to Sealy, Tx.