New Skyscrapers Planned?

[bruce_oneal]

does anyone know if there are any NEW skyscrapers planned for downtown? there seem to have been several residential towers that have sprung up in the galleria area, but not many downtown (save for the hilton and some other judicial tower).

aren't we overdue for a remarkable, ground breaking new tower design downtown?

[marc]

does anyone know if there are any NEW skyscrapers planned for downtown?  there seem to have been several residential towers that have sprung up in the galleria area, but not many downtown (save for the hilton and some other judicial tower).

aren't we overdue for a remarkable, ground breaking new tower design downtown?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do believe we are long overdue for a 900'+ tall building downtown. BUT, am I correct in assuming that there are really strict height codes concerning flight patterns to and from Hobby airport? How does this play in effect? Also, has anyone seen the Houston 2025 website? I think our leaders are leaning toward turning downtown into a residential friendly space. I wish the Bank of the Southwest Tower (proposed 1983) would have been built. Downtown Houston needs something with a spire..... it helped modernize the look of Philly.

[bruce_oneal]

I do believe we are long overdue for a 900'+ tall building downtown.  BUT, am I correct in assuming that there are really strict height codes concerning flight patterns to and from Hobby airport?  How does this play in effect?  Also, has anyone seen the Houston 2025 website?  I think our leaders are leaning toward turning downtown into a residential friendly space.  I wish the Bank of the Southwest Tower (proposed 1983) would have been built.  Downtown Houston needs something with a spire..... it helped modernize the look of Philly. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not sure about the height restrictions. maybe someone else knows.

i would have loved the bnk of the sw too ... perhaps someone will take the design and use it still. do you know if architectural plans only get considered for one purpose and one purpose only?

[marc]

not sure about the height restrictions.  maybe someone else knows.

i would have loved the bnk of the sw too ... perhaps someone will take the design and use it still.  do you know if architectural plans only get considered for one purpose and one purpose only?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the particulars of how architectural plans go from the proposal to approved to construction phase. I am sure everyone knows this (forgive me, I am a novice at locating web sites), BUT... two very informative as well as eye-pleasing sites devoted to skyscrapers are SKYSCRAPERPAGE.COM and EMPORIS.COM. I think you will be pleased.

As a native Houstonian (I now live in LA) I am always fond of following my native city's growth and progress......ie.......the new light rail....... extension of city limits.....and of course, new high rises in any shape or form. I come into Houston usually once a year......and then drive the 610 loop........then the Sam Houston Tollway. I see a lot of stuff rising around the Galleria Area (mostly residential?) ...I wonder if that area has enough economic potential to warrent another skyscraper to rival the Williams Tower? What do you think?

[UrbaNerd]

Sure, as long as it isnt too close to the Williams. "The Two towers of Uptown" would be cool!

[YakuzaIce]

I wonder if that area has enough economic potential to warrent another skyscraper to rival the Williams Tower?  What do you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't there a 42 story residential going up, it won't be as tall but it may be the second tallest in the area.

Found it, from the HBJ

"In what could become one of the most high-profile properties in Houston, Turnberry Associates is planning to construct a 42-story condominium tower near the Galleria.

Details have not been revealed about the local project, but a Turnberry magazine reports that the 180 units will go on sale soon.

Turnberry, which has a portfolio of more than $5 billion in commercial and residential properties, is also currently building the residences at MGM Grand in Las Vegas."

Thread about it http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...wtopic=1223&hl=

[travelguy_73]

Given the high vacancy rates, there probably isn't much demand for a major commercial skyscraper right now. We don't even use what we have!

With that said, there will surely be demand in the future, the question is how to time a new building to be complete around that time. Any developer with a crystal ball that clear wins, LOL.

[marc]

Given the high vacancy rates, there probably isn't much demand for a major commercial skyscraper right now.  We don't even use what we have!

With that said, there will surely be demand in the future, the question is how to time a new building to be complete around that time.  Any developer with a crystal ball that clear wins, LOL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read that article yesterday as well pertaining to the 42 storey high rise. I was also reading, that because Houston is sort of new to the residential high rise scene, supertall residences (like Trump Tower in New York or the New Trump tower proposed/approved for Chicago) will come........but slowly. Right now, the concept of vertical living has only been reserved for a select few in Houston. Am I right that Houston is second only to LA in land space available for growth? I guess Houstonians are so used to just "spreading out"....that a move vertically may seem just decadent to most. But, with a projected population near 6.5-7 million in the next 20 years..... I think vertical is the way to go in order to conserve green space. Houston is one of the most lush cities in terms of foliage.....I would hate that we would keep spreading out...... cutting down the forests around us......and I don't think commuters relish the thought that someday, one could live 150 miles outside the city.....and still be considered a part of Houston! Light rail future???

[houstonsemipro]

Marc, if you talking about land size Houston outdo L.A., but in population, no. Houston has 637 sqaure miles of land according to City of Houston's website. L.A. has only 431 square miles.

[bruce_oneal]

....and I don't think commuters relish the thought that someday, one could live 150 miles outside the city.....and still be considered a part of Houston!  Light rail future???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

helicopter.

[marc]

Marc, if you talking about land size Houston outdo L.A., but in population, no. Houston has 637 sqaure miles of land according to City of Houston's website. L.A. has only 431 square miles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

cool...good to know..........lots of possibilities.

[marc]

helicopter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK.........BUT...........on a mass transit scale?? Does any other city offer helicopter as a way to transport thousands of people from "suberbs" to down town?

Would not some rail system work better?

Any thoughts?

[houstonsemipro]

Houston is first in land space. Houston has over 630 sqaure miles, while L.A. has 431 sqaure miles of land.

[houstonsemipro]

oops, post double. Sorry.

[UrbaNerd]

Quadruple decker freeways.

[marc]

Quadruple decker freeways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, sorry about misspelling Suburbs............. long day.

Secondly, quadruple decker freeways? Isn't Houston's oversoaked land too soft to support such an endeavor? Or were you just kidding?

[UrbaNerd]

Just kidding.

[GovernorAggie]

I can see the like of Trump and Co. waiting to set up in Houston--but why has he gotten started in Tampa of all places?

That said, I think that Houston will see another boom downtown, uptown, and Westchase especially in t he next 10-20 years, depending on how long it takes for liquified natural gas to really take off in consumption. As an aside, I think Brazoria County is already getting a good foothold in this enegy sector.

[dalparadise]

Houston is first in land space. Houston has over 630 sqaure miles, while L.A. has 431 sqaure miles of land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You really need to get over this. The city of LA may be smaller in area, but the area of the LA metropolis is probably 5 times Houston. "LA" runs into Santa Monica, into Burbank, into Anaheim, into Long Beach, intoSanbernadino, into Pasadena, into Riverside, into Ventura, into...

Drive up on Mulholland some time and look out over the city. You will see massive sprawl broken up only by mountains that stretches for about 40 miles in each direction. That's roughly 3200 square miles. From Antelope Valley down to Southern Orange County is akin to a trip from Huntsville to Galveston...and it's ALL densely populated.

To say that Houston covers a larger area is to miss the fact that LA is made of many cities that have all become "LA", yet retain their identities. Nearly all of "Houston" is still Houston.

[bruce_oneal]

OK.........BUT...........on a mass transit scale?? Does any other city offer helicopter as a way to transport thousands of people from "suberbs" to down town?

Would not some rail system work better?

Any thoughts?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i was not a houstonian when the votes took place, but it seems like a LOT of people wanted to derail plans for mass rail transit. this city is STUCK on the automobile and is going to choke to death because of it.

i am not saying rail is the answer, but with 6M - 7M people projected to be here in the next several years, the auto is just not going to cut it. there is going to have also be a better campaign to wean folks off the auto. but, no amount of PR is going to work if METRO (bus i guess at this time) does not work.

for example, why does it take 1 hour (or more) for me togo by bus from my neighborhood (rigtht outside the beltway on westheimer) to the galleria (right outside loop 610 on westheimer)? it's because the schedules are too far apart, there are no high speed bus lanes, etc.

LA has a much better bus system ... multiple buses running the same routes plus rail. they are heavily car dependent too, but when i lived there i was able to get around quickly by bus and/or rail. i cannot do the same in houston.

[marc]

i was not a houstonian when the votes took place, but it seems like a LOT of people wanted to derail plans for mass rail transit.  this city is STUCK on the automobile and is going to choke to death because of it. 

i am not saying rail is the answer, but with 6M - 7M people projected to be here in the next several years, the auto is just not going to cut it.  there is going to have also be a better campaign to wean folks off the auto.  but, no amount of PR is going to work if METRO (bus i guess at this time) does not work. 

for example, why does it take 1 hour (or more) for me togo by bus from my neighborhood (rigtht outside the beltway on westheimer) to the galleria (right outside loop 610 on westheimer)?  it's because the schedules are too far apart, there are no high speed bus lanes, etc.

LA has a much better bus system ... multiple buses running the same routes plus rail.  they are heavily car dependent too, but when i lived there i was able to get around quickly by bus and/or rail.  i cannot do the same in houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Bruce,

True what you say.

I don't know too much about current conditions metro-wise in Houston, but as I wrote earlier, I live in LA, and yes, the mass transit system is getting better.

I live on the border of N. Hollywood and Toluca Lake, and the Metro subway runs about two blocks from my house. I work in the Valley, and they are creating a Rapid Transit Lane which runs along an existing path (old train tracks) all the way across the Valley (east to west) and then will connect to run up to Simi Valley (south to north). Unfortunately, the $400 mil. funding came up short for an above ground rail line......so we are stuck with a bus......BUT it is better than nothing, right? When it is finished (1 year from now) it will only cost me $1.25 a day and only 45 minutes of time to get to where I need to go.........as opposed to sitting in traffic morning and evening......and wear and tear on my car.........and gas........yada yada yada.

ANYWAY>>>>>>>> this is not about LA.......it is about Houston. Like LA, yes, it seems Houstonians like their cars. I have several friends and family who live in and near Houston........ it seems the split is 20% favorable.......80% unfavorable for mass transit. I guess some people don't get the BIG picture........can we (any city for that matter) honestly prefer sitting in more and more traffic, with more and more smog, and more and more time wasted?? I just don't understand people's reluctance to mass transit. I frequent Europe, especially London, Munich, Berlin and Paris at least twice a year.......and I suppose it goes without saying..... they are light years ahead of Houstonians in mass transit solutions. An ABOVE ground transit system, in my humble opinion, is definately the way to go. I was around the Medical Center (by the way, what an explosion of growth there! ) this past Christmas.....seeing the Light Rail was really cool. By cool, I mean, I felt like Houston was at least, trying to get into the 21st century.

Well, this seems to be turning into a novel...which is not the purpose of this forum...so ......enough said. Houston needs mass transit.....plain and simple.

Anyone has any other alternatives.........I am all ears.

m.

[marc]

does anyone know if there are any NEW skyscrapers planned for downtown?  there seem to have been several residential towers that have sprung up in the galleria area, but not many downtown (save for the hilton and some other judicial tower).

aren't we overdue for a remarkable, ground breaking new tower design downtown?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What does everyone think about Frank Gehry? Would a 900'+ skyscraper of his design be too out of place for Houston? I am always fascinated by the diversity of highrises in this city. Many other cities seem to have a similar themed continuity to them....... sort of like their skyline "look" is limited to the style of existing skyscrapers... whereas, to me, Houston is sort of an eclectic hodge-podge of cutting edge designs (by cutting edge....i mean, let's pretend it is still 1984) ...but as they developed, a certain uniqueness and continuity took shape. Agree? Disagree?

I envision a Gehry design.......a bit smaller on the bottom than the top.... his signature silver metal..... sort of the old world trade center (just one tower) but give it a bit of a twist.....(no, i mean literally!) .........too much?

Check out his other designs to get my drift. Maybe he is just destined to be an expert in low rises only??????? Except there is a building in NY he has his hands in.

(No, not the new Freedom Tower)

Any thoughts?

[UrbaNerd]

NAH! I'd rather see a Calatrava tower.

Actually, I am a HUUGE fan of postmodernism. I'd like to see some nice KPFs or something. KPF's modern stuff is nice, too.

[marc]

NAH!  I'd rather see a Calatrava tower.

Actually, I am a HUUGE fan of postmodernism.  I'd like to see some nice KPFs or something.  KPF's modern stuff is nice, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe a Michael Caridi?

But........I think you may be on to something........which would actually work these days.

1. Downtown seems to be leaning toward residential friendly highrises.

2. Unless there is something we are not being told..... new businesses akin to the

almighty oil industry do not seem to be flocking here.

3. Like the one in NY, a Calatrava could fit the criteria of a postmodern NOWISM sort of look DT Houston needs.

4. We get a new skyscraper, investors get high end tenants (very high end to make it pay off), .........everybody wins............right?

m.

[marc]

NAH!  I'd rather see a Calatrava tower.

Actually, I am a HUUGE fan of postmodernism.  I'd like to see some nice KPFs or something.  KPF's modern stuff is nice, too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey UrbaNerd,

You seem to be in the know based on other posts.......

Without a kajillion dollars worth of restructuring, how feasible is it to run a rail system (light rail or otherwise) on top of the ground to the major suburbs?

It goes without saying, Houston is pretty much shaped liked a wagon wheel (freeway wise, I mean). DT being the center, the Inner Loop 610, Sam Houston Tollway (which I like to refer to as the Outer Loop), and the rapidly developing 3rd Loop of Highway 6/1960. OK OK, I know everyone knows what an arial view of Houston looks like......please, bear with me.

So, the major freeways are the spokes (I-45, I-10, I-59, 290 and 288) ... Could a system be run near or with or on top of existing freeways? I understand, because of the massive widening projects going on, frontal space has already been taken from businesses and such, so to put it beside an existing freeway is probably not economically feasible, BUT something above? or even any empty corridors near exisiting major routes?

What do you think? Or even care?

I guess I am just frustrated with city leaders, because it seems some want Houston to expand and progress and such; but I question some decisions being made to transcend Houston from National City to International City. Does it really boil down to not enough money? Or is there something else at play here?

(yes, i know, i am being lazy.......i could just look all of this info. up on my own, but hey........it is worth asking someone)

m.

[UrbaNerd]

Ok, right now, running commuter rail is not very feasible into the suburbs. First, we need to establish the inner city rail lines, including a connector that attaches all of the major business districts (greenspoint, greenway, Uptown, downtown, etc- essentially, a westbound and northbound line), since people who live in the burbs commute to distant and scattered business districts, and usage would NOT be that great if it only led to one place. Like the freeway "wagon wheel" setup, the rail also needs a semi-radiating setup to allow for proper commuting to and from areas. (let's call the katy the blue line-katy>westchase>Energy>uptown(split)>greenway>red line.

The split from uptown would run south, towards sugarland and Richmond.

Another issue: maybe the suburbs could densify slightly, like, at least along the rail line, with a sort of "dense rail station village" of some sort, like in Dallas.

Anyway, I'm not really TOO much into the know(since Im just a budding urban development and architectural enthusiast..and a young one at that) but, Im really looking forward to what is going to happen to this city in th next few years. Recently, things have been quiet, but big things are starting to seep through the cracks of the barrier that seperates us from the true future of Houston, and once things start to pick up, we will be in quite exciting times, indeed. Such projects include the Pavillion at post oak, a few proposals in Midtown, and the hardy Rail yards (they said that work is alrady underway in clearing the area) I would like to see skyscrapers, but, I'd actually prefer to see Midtown and the Northside develop alot of midrise development.

Well..one can only wait to see what will happen next in our fair city.

[marc]

Ok, right now, running commuter rail is not very feasible into the suburbs.  First, we need to establish the inner city rail lines, including a connector that attaches all of the major business districts (greenspoint, greenway, Uptown, downtown, etc- essentially, a westbound and northbound line), since people who live in the burbs commute to distant and scattered business districts, and usage would NOT be that great if it only led to one place.  Like the freeway "wagon wheel" setup, the rail also needs a semi-radiating setup to allow for proper commuting to and from areas. (let's call the katy the blue line-katy>westchase>Energy>uptown(split)>greenway>red line.

The split from uptown would run south, towards sugarland and Richmond.

Another issue: maybe the suburbs could densify slightly, like, at least along the rail line, with a sort of "dense rail station village" of some sort, like in Dallas.

Anyway, I'm not really TOO much into the know(since Im just a budding urban development and architectural enthusiast..and a young one at that) but, Im really looking forward to what is going to happen to this city in th next few years.  Recently, things have been quiet, but big things are starting to seep through the cracks of the barrier that seperates us from the true future of Houston, and once things start to pick up, we will be in quite exciting times, indeed.  Such projects include the Pavillion at post oak, a few proposals in Midtown, and the hardy Rail yards (they said that work is alrady underway in clearing the area)  I would like to see skyscrapers, but, I'd actually prefer  to see Midtown and the Northside develop alot of midrise development.

Well..one can only wait to see what will happen next in our fair city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks UrbaNerd.

I guess it really does boil down to needing money and a great deal of time to restructure.

Midrises filling in Midtown and Northside would add to the urbanity of Houston.... true. I wonder, though, if Houston would lose some of her charm as bit by bit midrises and high rises dot the land? I know many comment on how unique it is to see large spaces of green in Houston and then out of seemingly nowhere pops up a high rise. I wonder if there will be a sort of "method to the madness" of development or if it will just be a hodge-podge of mid and high rises indiscriminately thrown across the city?

Thoughts?

[h-townrep]

Houston is first in land space. Houston has over 630 sqaure miles, while L.A. has 431 sqaure miles of land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, not including Anchorage and other Alaskian cities, Houston is second in the continuous 48. Jacksonville is 1st with over 800 square miles, L.A. would be second but for somereason they don't count the Mountains while in houston they do count channel and the uninhabited land going East. Houston really can't expand anymore with Katy to the west, Richmond to the Southwest, water and League city to the South, Lake Jackson and swamp land to the South East. Baytown and water to the East and Spring, Cypress to the west and Conroe to the North. Really the only places for Houston to spread is to Sugar Land and the Woodlands. In fact when the Woodlands was created, it was created to one day be part of Houston as our most northern part of the City. That was the plan, much like Missouri city was in the past.

Rail would be great to have for people to move around in. No matter how big Houston gets there is still a CBD and other areas of Business, Galleria, TMC, Greenspoint, Greenway and the Edgewood Enclave/Westchase. To another degree the Woodlands, Sugerland and to a smaller degree the Northwest exchange.

I think there will be another outside of New York/ Chicago American tallest in downtown Houston, just the FAA will have to approve it and change the course of one of the Hobby runways that includes downtown. that is why the Bank of the Southwest and the original continental tower was not done.

[Gary]

You really need to get over this. The city of LA may be smaller in area, but the area of the LA metropolis is probably 5 times Houston. "LA" runs into Santa Monica, into Burbank, into Anaheim, into Long Beach, intoSanbernadino, into Pasadena, into Riverside, into Ventura, into...

Drive up on Mulholland some time and look out over the city. You will see massive sprawl broken up only by mountains that stretches for about 40 miles in each direction. That's roughly 3200 square miles. From Antelope Valley down to Southern Orange County is akin to a trip from Huntsville to Galveston...and it's ALL densely populated.

To say that Houston covers a larger area is to miss the fact that LA is made of many cities that have all become "LA", yet retain their identities. Nearly all of "Houston" is still Houston.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As someone who lived in LA I can say you are absolutely correct. LA is beyond massive which actually makes it very unattractive to me. Personally I would prefer Houston to stop growing in area so we might preserve the country around us. In LA it's almost impossible to get to a truly rural place.

[bruce_oneal]

houston is plenty big. bigger, smaller, same size as LA... what difference does it make. it is still too darned hard to get around here. you MUST drive everywhere. when gasoline strikes $3/gallon and we'r estill pushing escalades, yukons, and hummers ... i pity to see the road rage.

why is it that houstonian's do not want mass transit?