Some recent work

[woolie]

(lyondell citgo)

(notsuoh)

Edited April 12, 2007 by Ian Rees

[musicman]

coming home to that every day would be depressing. it is construction such as this that adds to the flooding problems.

Edited April 12, 2007 by musicman

[Subdude]

coming home to that every day would be depressing. it is construction such as this that adds to the flooding problems.

You have to wonder why they even bothered planting the bushes. They just look straggly.

Great pictures though.

[musicman]

I like the density, but yes, the driveway should have been brick pavers or cobblestones. This is the batch of them at 288/Yellowstone.

Density like this is poor. It sure doesn't offer up anything community-wise. most are just going to come home and stay inside. the landscaping is almost nonexistent. most apartment complexes of the same vintage look better and offer more.

EDIT: Subdude i agree with the bushes

Edited April 12, 2007 by musicman

[Vertigo58]

You have to wonder why they even bothered planting the bushes. They just look straggly.

Great pictures though.

Nice pics, but I must say those tin whatever they are could double as a prison or a home for the mentally insane. I would go nuts if I were forced to live there. Where's the greenery?

[Boris]

Very cool vantage points.

[TheNiche]

I like the density, but yes, the driveway should have been brick pavers or cobblestones. This is the batch of them at 288/Yellowstone.

Brick pavers tend to get expensive to install in high-traffic areas because the soil has to be thoroughly compacted and stabilized. Otherwise there get to be ruts in the pavers as they are used and as the ground settles.

Density like this is poor. It sure doesn't offer up anything community-wise. most are just going to come home and stay inside. the landscaping is almost nonexistent. most apartment complexes of the same vintage look better and offer more.

EDIT: Subdude i agree with the bushes

That's because it is designed for the (relatively) poor (where this type of housing product is concerned). The whole thing is fee simple! To me, that's beautiful.

By the way, vintage is 2007. It's new construction. And no one was going to be walking around outside anyway because it is adjacent to a freeway and charity-owned housing.

Where's the greenery?

In their pocketbooks, where its supposed to be!

Edited April 12, 2007 by TheNiche

[Houstonian in Iraq]

If you don't mind me asking, where's this?

[Original Timmy Chan's]

it is construction such as this that adds to the flooding problems.

Hey, it's right next to a humongous detention pond...288!

But seriously, this place has two small detention ponds which theoretically mitigate their flooding impacts...and which also provides a little bit of green space.

I think the "tin barns" pretty well fit into the look of the neighborhood...which is mostly industrial right now. The ones on Calumet on the other hand, drive me crazy...Riverside Terrace is not the right setting for these Urban Lofts.

As far as greenery goes, this place is 3/4 mile from the hike & bike trails on Brays Bayou, and just over a mile from Hermann Park. Not a bad little amenity there...Personally I couldn't live with the small backyards that the folks in townhomes have, but some people don't want to deal with maintenance. I like being able to fit two dogs AND three people in the back yard at the same time! Can't do that in a lot of townhomes...

I have to disagree with Niche that these are designed for the "relatively" poor...with prices starting at $215,000, your definition of poor is much, much different than mine. You'd probably think I'm homeless! I think people are crazy to pay $215,000 for these places, but more power to 'em. We can use the population to help us get a little more retail around the 'hood.

[woolie]

Density like this is poor. It sure doesn't offer up anything community-wise. most are just going to come home and stay inside. the landscaping is almost nonexistent. most apartment complexes of the same vintage look better and offer more.

EDIT: Subdude i agree with the bushes

the bushes are tiny because the block was still under construction.

I agree with TheNiche. Not everyone cares for landscaping; there is a large market for this kind of 'fire and forget' housing. It is very affordable, high density, low maintenance, and the units are extremely large (price per square foot.) These are basically $200k for 1800sf. Other recent construction ITL is closer to $200k for 1100sf, $300k for 1600sf, 400k for 2000sf, +/- depending on area. Most of the time, that doesn't even guarantee you a street facing view.

The sister block @ Camden/Almeda could have used trees on the street-facing block even if the interior is empty, but if it'd affect the price significantly I'd forgive it.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Ian Rees

[musicman]

the bushes are tiny because the block was still under construction.

but with the amounts of concrete that surround them, they sure won't be anything major either.

[woolie]

If you don't mind me asking, where's this?

This is the new DeBakey Museum extension at Baylor College of Medicine. I took the image yesterday.

I have to disagree with Niche that these are designed for the "relatively" poor...with prices starting at $215,000, your definition of poor is much, much different than mine. You'd probably think I'm homeless! I think people are crazy to pay $215,000 for these places, but more power to 'em. We can use the population to help us get a little more retail around the 'hood.

$215k for a large townhouse West-of-288 (the "line") is pretty reasonable, definitely on the low end, and in the realm of a median-income working couple. The kind of people we definitely don't want priced out of the area unless we just want more and more Yuppieland. The price is above Houston median, but definitely well below west-ITL median.

[lockmat]

nice. my fav is the second.

[Guest danax]

the bushes are tiny because the block was still under construction.

I agree with TheNiche. Not everyone cares for landscaping; there is a large market for this kind of 'fire and forget' housing. It is very affordable, high density, low maintenance, and the units are extremely large (price per square foot.) These are basically $200k for 1800sf. Other recent construction ITL is closer to $200k for 1100sf, $300k for 1600sf, 400k for 2000sf, +/- depending on area. Most of the time, that doesn't even guarantee you a street facing view.

The sister block @ Camden/Almeda could have used trees on the street-facing block even if the interior is empty, but if it'd affect the price significantly I'd forgive it.

The City supposedly requires street trees to be planted for all new construction.

I don't have a problem with the density and townhouses, they're the future of Houston. Low maintenance living is a nice option , with outdoor activities being dependent on what the surrounding city has to offer. With our ability to transform an area's land use overnight by lining the city with blocks of townhouses, the City should awaken to the need to keep pace with the transition by adding parks and greenery whenever possible. Solid dense housing with no non-dense relief in the form of parks and open areas other than parking lots can become suffocating.

The Warehouse District seems to be headed in that direction. How are people going to tolerate living in these old townhomes 50 years from now packed like sardines? Land should be bought and reserved in these areas ahead of time, maybe using the lots they obtain from the demolished house program and turn them into pocket parks, instead of converting them into cheap housing via the Houston Hope project, but I suppose that would appear to be catering to the yuppies, a very non-politically favorable thing.

[TheNiche]

I have to disagree with Niche that these are designed for the "relatively" poor...with prices starting at $215,000, your definition of poor is much, much different than mine. You'd probably think I'm homeless! I think people are crazy to pay $215,000 for these places, but more power to 'em. We can use the population to help us get a little more retail around the 'hood.

Read between the parentheses. Also remember that if someone were to compute the equivalent present value of a $100/mo. maintenance fee, it would be equal to about $16k if it were mortgaged at 6.5%.

As far as greenery goes, this place is 3/4 mile from the hike & bike trails on Brays Bayou, and just over a mile from Hermann Park. Not a bad little amenity there...

I can live without the eastern portion of Hermann Park being a mile from me. And access to the Brays Bayou trail is only a mile if you're willing to walk up Ardmore, past the Johnny Quick and Exxon with the aggressive bums, past a massive distribution operation, across the Dixie bridge over SH 288, along Dixie a short while, and (finally) past some decent homes along Bowling Green...and back...to be able to hike on the closest part of that trail. You might feel comfortable with it, but I doubt any of the buyers of these townhomes will.

Edited April 13, 2007 by TheNiche

[TheNiche]

The Warehouse District seems to be headed in that direction. How are people going to tolerate living in these old townhomes 50 years from now packed like sardines?

The warehouse district sounds like it will be getting a park at Chartres, Rusk, St. Emanuel, and Capitol.

Land should be bought and reserved in these areas ahead of time, maybe using the lots they obtain from the demolished house program and turn them into pocket parks, instead of converting them into cheap housing via the Houston Hope project, but I suppose that would appear to be catering to the yuppies, a very non-politically favorable thing.

Depends. If they install playground equipment, that would be a sure-fire way to keep townhome developers out of a small radius around the park. If they install outdoor sculptures and a dog trot, on the other hand...

[dgreco]

nice pictures thanks for the post.

[mls1202]

That last picture with the lights shining through the fog reminds me of the scene in ET where he goes home...

[musicman]

but I suppose that would appear to be catering to the yuppies, a very non-politically favorable thing.

last weekend we had a young couple start to explain to us how they were so environmentally conscious. a few patrons started talking to them more and everyone soon realized they had no idea how they were really just like everyone else. when your entire property is concrete you're really not environmentally conscious.

[woolie]

last weekend we had a young couple start to explain to us how they were so environmentally conscious. a few patrons started talking to them more and everyone soon realized they had no idea how they were really just like everyone else. when your entire property is concrete you're really not environmentally conscious.

My personal environmental goals are reduced CO2 emissions and reduced vehicle use. Hence my frustration with housing in the other thread. I'm willing to trade some increases in flood control necessary if it means double or triple the density in a neighborhood, since the net result (ideally, maybe not in Houston) of that is much less energy wasted on transportation.

[musicman]

My personal environmental goals are reduced CO2 emissions and reduced vehicle use. Hence my frustration with housing in the other thread. I'm willing to trade some increases in flood control necessary if it means double or triple the density in a neighborhood, since the net result (ideally, maybe not in Houston) of that is much less energy wasted on transportation.

most dense areas tend to generate more heat. there is less vegetation to help alleviate the situation which would also help the CO2 problem

[TheNiche]

most dense areas tend to generate more heat. there is less vegetation to help alleviate the situation which would also help the CO2 problem

I know that rooftops and asphalt generate a lot of heat, but doesn't concrete tend to reflect more light back into space? And I'm not sure of the properties of galvalume or whatever that material is that is being used on these townhomes, but I understand that it is very energy-efficient.

[musicman]

I know that rooftops and asphalt generate a lot of heat, but doesn't concrete tend to reflect more light back into space? And I'm not sure of the properties of galvalume or whatever that material is that is being used on these townhomes, but I understand that it is very energy-efficient.

concrete tends to absorb the heat and release it throughout the night....skate on a street on a summer evening and you'd be amazing at how much heat is released. any new home is fairly energy efficient. so that really isn't a factor when you're comparing a home in a dense area surrounded by concrete vs one with a yard and trees.

[TheNiche]

any new home is fairly energy efficient.

I beg to differ. If jscarbor is around, perhaps he'd be coming from a more informed position than ourselves.

By the way...just out of curiosity, why is the urban heat island effect bad? I know it makes for more precipitation, but heck, I like rain. Keeps things green.

[Guest danax]

The warehouse district sounds like it will be getting a park at Chartres, Rusk, St. Emanuel, and Capitol.

Depends. If they install playground equipment, that would be a sure-fire way to keep townhome developers out of a small radius around the park. If they install outdoor sculptures and a dog trot, on the other hand...

True, the parks would have to be designed with the locals in mind and would also have to be located in sensitive spots, not squeezed between two townhouse clusters, unless it covered back to back lots, which could create a pedestrian path to the next street over. That sort of thing requires some planning and flair for urban design. Is there any single person amongst the thousands working for the City whose job is to think of things like this, i.e., an urban planning artist?

The location that you've mentioned sounds good. I think the rail's going to pass nearby but I have to wonder what the City's true motivation would be for its creation; breaking up the concrete and density as part of a long-range beautification master plan or just part of a short-range beautification plan by giving the homeless willing to walk a ways a place to sleep besides the sidewalks surrounding Fish and Loaves.

[woolie]

most dense areas tend to generate more heat. there is less vegetation to help alleviate the situation which would also help the CO2 problem

By definition increase in density results in greater % of green space overall, so I'm not sure how to interpret this. Cities are the best mechanism for wildlife and natural conservation we have. Suburbs destroy it (Katy Prairie, anyone?). So you're wrong there. Second, CO2 emissions are complex, but the major sources that we have control over personally and can reduce are automobiles and electricity generation. It's well established that denser, more walkable, and transit oriented cities are far more efficient in terms of automobile use and electricity use than the suburban American model. So I think we should be moving in this direction, as well as moving to increased nuclear/wind power and as much conservation as can be achieved without quality of life reductions.

Light absorption and refraction are complex topics, but it's basically true that lighter materials absorb less light. Concrete can get hot, but try comparing it to asphault. I'd wager that the total effect is more or less trivial compared to the enormity of the CO2 problem, though. Actually one of the "holy ____ we're ____ed" concepts for dealing with global warming is giant, reflective plastic sheets to drape over large areas of the planet, or the equivalent in space.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Ian Rees

[musicman]

I beg to differ. If jscarbor is around, perhaps he'd be coming from a more informed position than ourselves.

By the way...just out of curiosity, why is the urban heat island effect bad? I know it makes for more precipitation, but heck, I like rain. Keeps things green.

take our houses vs. something new. there is definitely better energy efficiency. relatively most new houses are energy efficient if built to today's codes. can they be made more energy efficient? yes. I know my neighbor added onto her pier/beam home and the city made her insulate under the house.

[musicman]

By definition increase in density results in greater % of green space overall, so I'm not sure how to interpret this. Cities are the best mechanism for wildlife and natural conservation we have. Suburbs destroy it (Katy Prairie, anyone?). So you're wrong there. Second, CO2 emissions are complex, but the major sources that we have control over personally and can reduce are automobiles and electricity generation. It's well established that denser, more walkable, and transit oriented cities are far more efficient in terms of automobile use and electricity use than the suburban American model. So I think we should be moving in this direction, as well as moving to increased nuclear/wind power and as much conservation as can be achieved without quality of life reductions.

Light absorption and refraction are complex topics, but it's basically true that lighter materials absorb less light. Concrete can get hot, but try comparing it to asphault. I'd wager that the total effect is more or less trivial compared to the enormity of the CO2 problem, though. Actually one of the "holy ____ we're ____ed" concepts for dealing with global warming is giant, reflective plastic sheets to drape over large areas of the planet, or the equivalent in space.

density will only result in greater % of green space IF the population remains constant. in our situation the population is increasing and more people need a place to live in a finite area. few cities as a whole are walkable, transit oriented and more dense. urban sprawl is the model in most US cities. Yes you can isolate yourself to a small area of a city and might find an urban development, however the majority of the city isn't built in that manner.

the design of the townhomes you showed wrt the environment in Houston is bad. that is all i was saying.

[TheNiche]

I have to wonder what the City's true motivation would be for its creation; breaking up the concrete and density as part of a long-range beautification master plan or just part of a short-range beautification plan by giving the homeless willing to walk a ways a place to sleep besides the sidewalks surrounding Fish and Loaves.

I've heard that the purchase of that block with private money for a public park was part of the deal by way of which the East Downtown Management District agreed to subsidize the development of the Lofts at the Ballpark project.

[TheNiche]

CO2 emissions are complex, but the major sources that we have control over personally and can reduce are automobiles and electricity generation. It's well established that denser, more walkable, and transit oriented cities are far more efficient in terms of automobile use and electricity use than the suburban American model. So I think we should be moving in this direction, as well as moving to increased nuclear/wind power and as much conservation as can be achieved without quality of life reductions.

Ah yes, I forgot all about electricity being the primary driver of CO2, and that does kind of lend some credibility to the urban heat island issue contributing to CO2 output by way of inducing AC use. At the very least, anyway, it would seem to be an offsetting factor. Do you happen to know what amount of output of CO2 output is necessary for each kilowatt hour in the Houston area? Preferably not only accounting for CO2 from operations, but also caused by power plant materials fabrication, construction, and maintenance?

I've been wanting to make that comparison on the light rail vs. bus and BRT debates on other threads, as well.

Light absorption and refraction are complex topics, but it's basically true that lighter materials absorb less light. Concrete can get hot, but try comparing it to asphault. I'd wager that the total effect is more or less trivial compared to the enormity of the CO2 problem, though. Actually one of the "holy ____ we're ____ed" concepts for dealing with global warming is giant, reflective plastic sheets to drape over large areas of the planet, or the equivalent in space.

Yikes. I'm not really on the side of the issue that advocates spending money to try to control GW, and one of many reasons is that we might overdo it and end up in an ice age...I don't want to be in an ice age. That would be very very bad, far worse than a warmer planet. The giant plastic sheet idea is about the scariest thing I've ever heard anyone suggest. Not only would it require an enormous investment in hydrocarbon and mineral extraction and chemical refining, but it would seem that blocking the sunlight from getting to the surface would kill off entire ecosystems all at once and render vast sections of the world a vast expanse of dead terrain, which would reduce the amount of oxygen output and put us in an unrecoverable situation.

take our houses vs. something new. there is definitely better energy efficiency. relatively most new houses are energy efficient if built to today's codes. can they be made more energy efficient? yes. I know my neighbor added onto her pier/beam home and the city made her insulate under the house.

Depends how you make the comparison. There are lots of new homes that aren't energy efficient at all as compared with other new homes. And since we're talking about how urban areas that exist in the present day are being developed with new housing stock, it is perhaps more important to compare apples to apples.