Houston City Centre

[fernz]

You should do more research. Kobi Karp is HOT right now in South Florida and in Vegas. Here is a break down.

COMPLETED IN THE LAST 5 YEARS (15 towers)

42 floor LaPerla in Sunny Isles Beach

21 floor Bridgewater in North Bay Village

13 floor Los Suenos in Miami

27 floor Meridian in Sunny Isles Beach

14 floor King David Condos in Sunny Isles Beach

18 floor Bel-Aire on the Ocean in Miami Beach

26 floor Grand Venetian in Miami Beach

13 floor Hilton Marina Bay in Sunny Isles Beach

20 floor twins at the Parc Central in Aventura

25 floor twins and a 17 floor bldg at the Intra Coastal Yacht Club in Sunny Isles Beach

12 floor Golden Bay Club in Sunny Isles Beach

15 floor twins at the Vue in Fort Lauderdale

UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW (15 towers)

26 floor twins at the Tao in Sunrise

20 floor twins at the ONE in Las Vegas

15 floor Nobe Bay in Miami Beach

53 floor Jade in Sunny Isles beach

24 floor Sole in Sunny Isles Beach

22 floor Mei in Miami Beach

20 floor Eloquence in North Bay Village

18 floor The Lexi in North Bay Village

26 floor Star Lofts in Miami

19 floor Caribbean

25 floor twins at the Duo

19 floor St. Tropez

APPROVED (14 buildings)

One West with 34, 32, and 32 story towers

Sapphire with twin 12 floor towers

Tiziano with 15 floors

Belaire on the Bay with 15 floors

Prisma Lofts with 16 floors

1101 Brickell with SEVENTY FLOOR floors

Brickell FlatIron with SEVENTY floors

St. Tropez with two more 19 story towers

The Chelsea with FIFTY THREE floors

The Park Lane with 33 floors

The DaVinci with 27 floors

PROPOSED (16 buildings)

41 floor Lima

32 floor Ocean Resort

30 floor Westin Diplomat

15 floor Driftwood

22 floor 5th Avenue Lofts

70 and 50 floor South Biscayne Blvd

twin 31 story Arts Condos

twin 19 story St. Tropez

twin ONE HUNDRED and SIX story Empire World Towers

41,33 and 22 floor Electra Towers

The architect's success in South Florida and Vegas doesn't mean much. If you can show me a similar list of the developer's track record in the Houston market, then I'll think there is a possibility. I have worked in three different architecture firms in the last ten years, and all three have an extensive list of "projects" as part of their marketing material that are a collection of real projects and a range of feasibility studies, competition entries, or mere marketing for owners looking to sell their land.

Besides, looking at all the potential towers planned for DT, all are for office space because that is where the demand is. With the Finger tower going up and the HP residential scrapped, I would bet that the numbers are not there to support additional apartments or condos in DT, espacially for a luxury 50-story tower.

[houstonfella]

Not in the forseeable future for NYC, LA, or Chicago. But anything could happen in the span of a century.

LA's skyline ain't all that .... Houston's better. Chi-town is bigger and all, but H-town is on the move. Give us 20 yrs.

Florida is making room for more grandma's and grandpa's .... good luck during hurricane season ....

Edited April 5, 2007 by houstonfella

[houstonfella]

I hope not!!

I like the tall towers to be built here, but never on the scale of NYC. The NYC skyline only looks good under the cover of darkness. Those amount of towers here would certainly have a negative affect on wind and wind force. Those things magnify the effects of wind and generate thier own wind patterns.

I also never want to see the population of NYC placed here either. The larger the number of people the larger the chances of idiots and degenerates flowing into the city.

Be careful, this board is full of NYC lovers. I could care less about NYC because been there done that. but.... some people here just love that New York living... NOT me. I love H-town!

[Mister X]

A little extra wind is a small price to pay for a good skyscraper.

[H-Town Man]

a little off topic, but since houston has so much more room, and NYC is basically at capacity, do you think houston could ever catch and pass NYC in total towers/people, also when? and how about the other chicago and LA as well.

The thing you have to remember is, people tend to want to live in towers when there is something to look at. Chicago has a big nice lake, and LA has hills and an ocean. Miami (just to throw in another city) has an ocean. If you had the money to live in a tower, where would you want to live?

The other factor, and this especially applies to LA and New York, is that once you run out of space, people tend to be MORE likely to build towers. Houston's great strength is that we have limitless land (but nothing special to look at), which pretty much makes us a great city for tract homes. At the end of the day, that's where we'll stand out.

[Coaster]

Houston's great strength is that we have limitless land (but nothing special to look at)

Except other skyscrapers.

That's reason enough to build new towers - for good views of the old ones.

[Spades]

LA's skyline ain't all that .... Houston's better. Chi-town is bigger and all, but H-town is on the move. Give us 20 yrs.

Add a 0 on there and you may have a point. It's going to take alotttt longer than 20 years for any city not named New York to catch up to Chicago in the United States.

[woolie]

Add a 0 on there and you may have a point. It's going to take alotttt longer than 20 years for any city not named New York to catch up to Chicago in the United States.

It won't take much more than $5 or $10 gas for most American cities to transform pretty much overnight. If the economy survives at all, that is.

[dgreco]

LA's skyline ain't all that .... Houston's better. Chi-town is bigger and all, but H-town is on the move. Give us 20 yrs.

Florida is making room for more grandma's and grandpa's .... good luck during hurricane season ....

LA doesn't have the skyline, but it does have the people. I see Chicago as a possibility within 20 years, maybe less. I do not think Houston has a chance at LA or NYC for a while, but I don't know the change rate. It also depends on development, because NYC is basically full, and LA is building wrong.

[Trae]

LA doesn't have the skyline, but it does have the people. I see Chicago as a possibility within 20 years, maybe less. I do not think Houston has a chance at LA or NYC for a while, but I don't know the change rate. It also depends on development, because NYC is basically full, and LA is building wrong.

How is LA building wrong? LA is building as dense as they come. I was just there in March for Spring Break. Every block may not be highrises, but they are retail at bottom, apartment at top type developments. I think you need to see this:

http://atlantasouth.2.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=1404

And this:

http://atlantasouth.2.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=1419

Edited April 6, 2007 by Trae

[KimberlySayWhat]

I saw a promo for channel 11 news tonight at 10 and I think they mentioned something about this City Centre. They're doing a story about all the development going on around town.

[webdude]

The thing you have to remember is, people tend to want to live in towers when there is something to look at. Chicago has a big nice lake, and LA has hills and an ocean. Miami (just to throw in another city) has an ocean. If you had the money to live in a tower, where would you want to live?

The other factor, and this especially applies to LA and New York, is that once you run out of space, people tend to be MORE likely to build towers. Houston's great strength is that we have limitless land (but nothing special to look at), which pretty much makes us a great city for tract homes. At the end of the day, that's where we'll stand out.

There are beautiful views of cars and parking lots.

Edited April 6, 2007 by webdude

[dgreco]

How is LA building wrong? LA is building as dense as they come. I was just there in March for Spring Break. Every block may not be highrises, but they are retail at bottom, apartment at top type developments. I think you need to see this:

http://atlantasouth.2.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=1404

And this:

http://atlantasouth.2.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=1419

they aren't building up they are building to much sprawl. Also, they had a chance to build a great large city. I think they built wrong. LA has the view of the valleys, great campuses, and so much more, and you really miss out on that. Residential neighborhoods should be in the towns outside the main cities, they shouldn't consume them.

[Trae]

Have you been to LA? Their sprawl does not skip over parcels of land like a lot of Sunbelt cities do. The only time they do leapfrog is when they have to jump over mountain ranges. The place is pretty dense (denser than NYC's metro...urban area). You can't tell how dense it really is, because the counties are so large.

[Jeebus]

LA doesn't have the skyline, but it does have the people. I see Chicago as a possibility within 20 years, maybe less.

I personally don't see Houston ever overtaking Chicago in anything other than baseline population numbers. We'll never have their skyline because we don't have zoning. Greenspoint, Greenway Plaza, Uptown, Westchase, & West I-10 would all have had to been built downtown for us to have a chance.

I think cities like Honolulu, Seattle & San Fransisco have better skylines than us. Back on focus though, the news report tonight wasn't about this City Centre, but instead the Town & Country development.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Jeebus

[Trae]

And Honolulu, Seattle, and San Francisco have the luxury of being built on top of mountains and huge hills. Downtown Houston was built on flat land. Even Downtown Dallas has a few hills around it. Imagine how much large our Downtown buildings would look like if some were on hills. The Library Tower (now US Bank Tower), is on top of one big hill in DT LA.

[Jeebus]

And Honolulu, Seattle, and San Francisco have the luxury of being built on top of mountains and huge hills. Downtown Houston was built on flat land. Even Downtown Dallas has a few hills around it. Imagine how much large our Downtown buildings would look like if some were on hills. The Library Tower (now US Bank Tower), is on top of one big hill in DT LA.

I was refering to zoning, not topography. Those cities have zoning in their favor to allow for a more natural downtown skyline development.

[woolie]

No one's claimed it won't happen yet? Alright, I'll be the first. It's a pure fantasy.

[musicman]

Those cities have zoning in their favor to allow for a more natural downtown skyline development.

so zoning allows for natural development?

[dgreco]

Have you been to LA? Their sprawl does not skip over parcels of land like a lot of Sunbelt cities do. The only time they do leapfrog is when they have to jump over mountain ranges. The place is pretty dense (denser than NYC's metro...urban area). You can't tell how dense it really is, because the counties are so large.

yea I do actually I went to school there. and I used to live in Costa Mesa, I know the area well. It isn't built like a proper city. It really misused and mishandled its city. Dense sprawl isn't good. Sprawl is never good, when you enjoy urban environments. I didn't say LA was a shitty city, I said that it wasn't built like a proper city, they could of done so much more with it.

I personally don't see Houston ever overtaking Chicago in anything other than baseline population numbers. We'll never have their skyline because we don't have zoning. Greenspoint, Greenway Plaza, Uptown, Westchase, & West I-10 would all have had to been built downtown for us to have a chance.

I think cities like Honolulu, Seattle & San Fransisco have better skylines than us. Back on focus though, the news report tonight wasn't about this City Centre, but instead the Town & Country development.

Well with SF, I think the best part of their skyline isn't downtown. They built downtown in a funny way because of topography. Unless you are in Oakland you can't enjoy the city skyline. If you go west and view the city from across GG bridge the skyline is much more impressive.

downtown

west of downtown.

so zoning allows for natural development?

Without restrictiosn you have a better way to fill in the city, and make the city flow better. I think that is why SF has one of the best transit systems also. You never need a car, between MUNI, CC, Street Cars, BART you can get anywhere within a good distance.

[KimberlySayWhat]

Oops. The channel 11 story was about the Town & Country City Centre.

[TheNiche]

I was refering to zoning, not topography. Those cities have zoning in their favor to allow for a more natural downtown skyline development.

That's not how it works. Skylines come about as a result of market demand, geography, or an urban growth boundary, not zoning.

In fact, of all cities, Houston would probably have the greatest advantage for trying to mold a skyline through zoning by virtue of its large size in terms of square miles, but if the number of parcels zoned for office within Houston but outside of the CBD were inadequate to meet demand for office space, there would only be a minor impact to any demand for expensive downtown office space, but prices for all office space throughout the remainder of the City of Houston would rise, and firms would eat the cost as office developers hurried to build office space at the periphery of the city limit or within neighboring cities that actually gave a **** about bringing in property tax revenue.

...but production developers like Perry and KB would love it! More people working in the suburbs means more affordable low-density tract housing!

[ricco67]

Yeah I thought they were talking about TC CC, but I wasn't aware of a City Centre occurring downtown, or was this skipped in our maze of discussions?

[tierwestah]

I think cities like Honolulu, Seattle & San Fransisco have better skylines than us.

I agree with you for the most part, but you lost me with Honolulu

[Mister X]

Other than the Trans America building, I can't see anything so special about SF's skyline. Flat roof city! (by law no less) And what's so special about Seattle's? (other than that fantastic Space Needle and new football stadium, of course)

back on topic -

I kind of expect to see a flood of doubts about the realization of HCC at any moment. That rendering is such a rush. But if we don't hear something official pretty soon, people will start dismissing this project in droves. Here's to hope.

This could be the dawning of the next HP thread.

[musicman]

I kind of expect to see a flood of doubts about the realization of HCC at any moment. That rendering is such a rush. But if we don't hear something official pretty soon, people will start dismissing this project in droves. Here's to hope.

go to the website and call them then you won't have to hope. you will know definitively.

[Mister X]

go to the website and call them then you won't have to hope. you will know definitively.

That's a good idea. But I'm too lazy and it sounds like too much trouble. I'd rather just check this thread every five minutes to see if anyone knows anything.

Plus, just in case it's bad news, I get to live in fantasyland for a few days longer. Like that brief time we all thought that rail was going to go all the way down Richmond to turn Afton Oaks in to the ghetto it deserves to be.

[HtownWxBoy]

That's a good idea. But I'm too lazy and it sounds like too much trouble. I'd rather just check this thread every five minutes to see if anyone knows anything.

Plus, just in case it's bad news, I get to live in fantasyland for a few days longer. Like that brief time we all thought that rail was going to go all the way down Richmond to turn Afton Oaks in to the ghetto it deserves to be.

[brijonmang]

soo...no one has heard anything about this one? It's weird that this thread had so much activity for 3 days and then just died.

[Subdude]

I think it will be a long time before we hear anything about this, since at this point it doesn't seem to be much more than a rendering instead of a serious development proposal like the Disco Tower. A lot of proposals get thrown around, but few make it to completion. Still, it would be great if this were built.