Houston Playing Catch-up

[mpope409]

When I sit and think about it, I start to realize that even as great as Houston is already, it doesn't seem to be taking enough steps at a time to become even greater.

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

When are we going to stop tearing down historic places? If developers keep doing this, Houston will eventually be a city that doesn't have a single structure that outdates the year 1970. The city will be a brand new, sparkling hell hole.

And when will the architecture get better? It almost feels as if our city leaders really do not care about Houston's image, and are being extremely lazy and cheap in this town's growth.

Edited November 5, 2007 by mpope409

[TheNiche]

When I sit and think about it, I start to realize that even as great as Houston is already, it doesn't seem to be taking enough steps at a time to become even greater.

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

When are we going to stop tearing down historic places? If developers keep doing this, Houston will eventually be a city that doesn't have a single structure that outdates the year 1970. The city will be a brand new, sparkling hell hole.

And when will the architecture get better? It almost feels as if our city leaders really do not care about Houston's image, and are being extremely lazy and cheap in this town's growth.

It all depends on your own personal definition of greatness.

I personally will loathe the day that yuppies rule Houston. As it is, neither Victory Park or the Houston Pavilions appeal to me. When I need t-shirts, I'll go to Wal-Mart, wishing the whole time that they'd build a Supercenter in the Inner Loop. When I need business attire, I'll go to Dillards. If I ever have a craving to collect knick-knacks such as from an overpriced boutique retailer, I'll go to Kroger, buy some Shiner Hefeweizen, and hang out on the sofa until I'm cured. This reminds me: screw the posh bars and clubs in such yuppie havens. Cute girls, yes, but I've found that they come doubly-expensive, taking from both wallet and sanity. Houston, that's not worth it.

Historic places will stop being torn down when the City stops growing; of course, just as greatness is subjective, so is what constitutes 'historic'. I'm as much inclined to think of upper Main Street as historic as I am the Houston Ship Channel or Gulfton--and frankly, the moment that something is built, its construction becomes something that occured in history, and so everything is historic. This doesn't bother me much. The world changes. Sentimentality is not for me.

You want good architecture? Pay for it. And you'd best pray to the powers that be that government doesn't try to determine what is in good taste, ruling that yours is unacceptable.

As for our supposedly lazy leaders, I see it the other way around. If only they'd sit on their butts all day long! Or perhaps get a second job. Dynamism of the citizen is far preferable to dynamism of government.

Edited November 5, 2007 by TheNiche

[Gary]

When I sit and think about it, I start to realize that even as great as Houston is already, it doesn't seem to be taking enough steps at a time to become even greater.

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

When are we going to stop tearing down historic places? If developers keep doing this, Houston will eventually be a city that doesn't have a single structure that outdates the year 1970. The city will be a brand new, sparkling hell hole.

And when will the architecture get better? It almost feels as if our city leaders really do not care about Houston's image, and are being extremely lazy and cheap in this town's growth.

So hows the weather up there in Big-D?

[jgriff]

We'll get all that stuff when someone wants to pay for it. Personally I'd rather it not be me and I hope the government doesn't make me.

[nate]

As for our supposedly lazy leaders, I see it the other way around. If only they'd sit on their butts all day long! Or perhaps get a second job. Dynamism of the citizen is far preferable to dynamism of government.

Amen.

What has made Houston great is that (until this year) the government has generally allowed people to do as they please. I don't want a government that tries to cater to attract "elite" hipsters or tries to impose its view of the ideal lifestyle on citizens that don't want it.

[C2H]

So hows the weather up there in Big-D?

I can vouch that mpope is a true houstonian. She always posts at City-Data.com and constantly defends Houston on a regular.

[mpope409]

It all depends on your own personal definition of greatness.I personally will loathe the day that yuppies rule Houston. As it is, neither Victory Park or the Houston Pavilions appeal to me. When I need t-shirts, I'll go to Wal-Mart, wishing the whole time that they'd build a Supercenter in the Inner Loop. When I need business attire, I'll go to Dillards. If I ever have a craving to collect knick-knacks such as from an overpriced boutique retailer, I'll go to Kroger, buy some Shiner Hefeweizen, and hang out on the sofa until I'm cured. This reminds me: screw the posh bars and clubs in such yuppie havens. Cute girls, yes, but I've found that they come doubly-expensive, taking from both wallet and sanity. Houston, that's not worth it.Historic places will stop being torn down when the City stops growing; of course, just as greatness is subjective, so is what constitutes 'historic'. I'm as much inclined to think of upper Main Street as historic as I am the Houston Ship Channel or Gulfton--and frankly, the moment that something is built, its construction becomes something that occured in history, and so everything is historic. This doesn't bother me much. The world changes. Sentimentality is not for me.You want good architecture? Pay for it. And you'd best pray to the powers that be that government doesn't try to determine what is in good taste, ruling that yours is unacceptable.As for our supposedly lazy leaders, I see it the other way around. If only they'd sit on their butts all day long! Or perhaps get a second job. Dynamism of the citizen is far preferable to dynamism of government.

While you make very good points, that doesn't excuse Houston from its mistakes.And while you are comfortable with the city as is, many of us want to see and have better things without feeling forced to leave. Thank God that life here is so great, or I'd be persuaded to move somewhere else.

So hows the weather up there in Big-D?

I wouldn't know, seeing as how I'm in Houston.

[mpope409]

Amen.

What has made Houston great is that (until this year) the government has generally allowed people to do as they please. I don't want a government that tries to cater to attract "elite" hipsters or tries to impose its view of the ideal lifestyle on citizens that don't want it.

What about all those people living in terrible conditions? Has the city not failed them? Gentrification? Tearing down valued homes and businesses to replace them with crap. You call that decision making by a great city? Truth is, this city has made some very bad choices that have disadvantaged many.

Change is good in our case, and it won't just attract the "elite", but also the general nation. I fail to see how these changes would affect the way you choose to live. A better image can mean a better outlook for a city.

Edited November 6, 2007 by mpope409

[Trae]

I think the East End Line will be great for that side of town, especially when it turns south and joins up again with the Southeast/Green Line heading into Hobby Airport. That is about ten years away though.

[mojeaux131]

Amen.

What has made Houston great is that (until this year) the government has generally allowed people to do as they please. I don't want a government that tries to cater to attract "elite" hipsters or tries to impose its view of the ideal lifestyle on citizens that don't want it.

True, but many others don't want a government that caters to ruthless developers or the almighty dollar. Making more sensible decisions with respect to the city's development and growth is hardly an imposition. With more sensible, long-term decision-making, the city will most likely become more "great" in mpope's (and many others') conception of the word. I think many citizens of Houston are fed up with car-centric, unscrupulous, irresponsible development, and they are right to want something better. It doesn't have to be more expensive, or "ideal", or "elite", just smarter.

[MidtownCoog]

If you mean business leaders (not politicos) then I agree. Houston was built by great business mean.

We need to find that spirit that built the Dome, The Med Center, NASA and the Port.

We don't need to catch up with anyone, we need to do what makes sense for Houston in the long term.

[musicman]

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

When are we going to stop tearing down historic places? If developers keep doing this, Houston will eventually be a city that doesn't have a single structure that outdates the year 1970. The city will be a brand new, sparkling hell hole.

And when will the architecture get better? It almost feels as if our city leaders really do not care about Houston's image, and are being extremely lazy and cheap in this town's growth.

building a copycat development seems lazy and cheap to me.

if you want city leaders to dictate what is built, creativity will be lost. Houston's image will not improve.

while i agree that historical structures should be saved, it shouldn't be done at the city level, it would end up limiting growth. each of us can do our own part by convincing others that quality structures are being destroyed and being replaced by a structure not meant to last a lifetime.

btw where do you live?

Edited November 6, 2007 by musicman

[TheNiche]

While you make very good points, that doesn't excuse Houston from its mistakes.And while you are comfortable with the city as is, many of us want to see and have better things without feeling forced to leave. Thank God that life here is so great, or I'd be persuaded to move somewhere else.I wouldn't know, seeing as how I'm in Houston.

Don't get me wrong, I want to see better things as well. It seems that we just have a difference of opinion regarding what those things actually are and how they might come about.

[Trae]

I actually wouldn't mind something like Victory Park in Dallas, or Atlantic Station in Atlanta being built somewhere in Houston's core. The Hardy Rail Yards doesn't come close.

[TheNiche]

What about all those people living in terrible conditions? Has the city not failed them?

Are there not people in any great city living in "terrible conditions"? And I ask you, who has failed them? Is it I? Am I my brother's keeper? If he lives in a trailer, owns a dog that isn't housebroken, and doesn't clean up its dung, just laying down newspapers over it daily, creating a disgusting fecal lasanga of sorts, is it my responsibility to clean it up? In all seriousness, some people live like that. Did society make that happen, or is the habitant of that trailer responsible for his own condition?I think people ought to mind their own business. Perhaps your view of "terrible conditions" or "failed" persons does not match theirs.

Gentrification?

What's wrong with gentrification?

Tearing down valued homes and businesses to replace them with crap. You call that decision making by a great city? Truth is, this city has made some very bad choices that have disadvantaged many.

Perhaps your statemtent here could be augmented to read, "Tearing down homes and businesses valued by me to replace them with what I perceive as crap." If everyone thought them to be crap, then nobody would buy/rent the homes or patronize the businesses. I'd ask that you recognize that not everyone believes as you believe, or has the same aesthetic tastes as you own.

Change is good in our case, and it won't just attract the "elite", but also the general nation. I fail to see how these changes would affect the way you choose to live. A better image can mean a better outlook for a city.

Who is this "general nation"? What is a "better image"? What is a "better outlook"? And why do you get to decide?

The Hardy Rail Yards doesn't come close.

Yeah, that's probably because the Hardy Yards are just vacant land that isn't getting built up any time soon. It is a project that never was.

[TheNiche]

True, but many others don't want a government that caters to ruthless developers or the almighty dollar.

I don't want a government that caters to ruthless developers or the almighty dollar either. They ought not cater to any one person, interest group, business entity, agency, et al. any more than they cater to any other. Frankly, there are many aspects of governance, where I'd rather they not cater to anyone whosoever they may be.

Making more sensible decisions with respect to the city's development and growth is hardly an imposition. With more sensible, long-term decision-making, the city will most likely become more "great" in mpope's (and many others') conception of the word. I think many citizens of Houston are fed up with car-centric, unscrupulous, irresponsible development, and they are right to want something better. It doesn't have to be more expensive, or "ideal", or "elite", just smarter.

The same kind of questions I'd asked mpope apply here. By whose authority do you lay claim to sensibility? What is "great"? You believe that many citizens are fed up with this that or the other and proclaim to want something "smarter", but you fail to acknowledge those that would be inconvenienced by policies necessary to bring about your personal vision of utopia. You claim that "many others" share this conception of greatness, and I'd agree that this is the case. Even a dozen qualifies as many. But there is a reason that the vast majority of persons live in the suburbs--they like it there. Is it too much to ask that you respect their preferences and that you might be able to live out your own?

[sowanome]

What about all those people living in terrible conditions? Has the city not failed them? Gentrification? Tearing down valued homes and businesses to replace them with crap. You call that decision making by a great city? Truth is, this city has made some very bad choices that have disadvantaged many.

Change is good in our case, and it won't just attract the "elite", but also the general nation. I fail to see how these changes would affect the way you choose to live. A better image can mean a better outlook for a city.

Gentrification!!!!!!!! It's happening everywhere and not just in Houston. For example, I've lived in Chicago and I'm moving back in the winter(yes, the real winter), and they have been tearing down low-income residential units and forcing those residents to the suburbs for over 9 years. Does this sound familiar? It sounds like a good deal, " You can get a larger home in a cleaner area for the same price you were paying previously." However, they don't tell them that those same townhomes/single family homes that were being built in their area basically drove up property values to the point that there was a better (More Profitable) use of their land. Again, Does this sound familiar? I'm sorry, but Houstonians complain too much about this issue and do nothing to solve the problem! Do you know why we Houstonians do Nothing? ECONOMICS

Economically, this same issue happened in the late 70's and early 80's. IT'S called "White Flight", " Urban Escape", " Suburban Relocation" ETC. However, now in 2007 some suburbs are beginning to look a bit run down and the lifestyle that gentrification has displaced is beginning to appear in the suburbs. I wonder why? This isn't an issue that we the people can solve as long as people continue to make money and work high paying jobs! Everything that happens in Houston and other cities is all about MONEY! Pavillions, West Ave., River Oaks shopping Center, The Galleria Area, etc.

Nobody complained when they demolished allen house, the area for West Ave or Highland Village. IF there is a better use, the money will find it!

Historic or Not! I'd rather make money than to live poorly in history! It's all Economics. (Check the labels on your clothes) $$$$ It's just different when someone tries to take advantage of us. Or is it a double standard (look at who built the country and who's building it now)==>Someone has to be the slave in order to get by........

[TheNiche]

Someone has to be the slave in order to get by........

Who's that?

[webdude]

Unfortunately, as evident in this thread, its all about making money, if you can convince developers and leaders that your kind of image will fatten their pockets, this is the kind of image we are stuck with.

you want nice casual dining, but they build convenient fast food, because its a predictable money maker.

Edited November 6, 2007 by webdude

[jgriff]

Perhaps your statemtent here could be augmented to read, "Tearing down homes and businesses valued by me to replace them with what I perceive as crap." If everyone thought them to be crap, then nobody would buy/rent the homes or patronize the businesses.

Amen, TheNiche. My thoughts exactly.

I may think some of it is crap too but it doesn't make me think that I should be able to tell other people what to do with their property.

[editor]

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

What's Victory Park?

[editor]

What about all those people living in terrible conditions?

I've often been amazed by the things people will live in and call home. And in warm climates like along the Gulf Coast things I wouldn't normally think are inhabited seem to sprout satellite dishes and Christmas lights, so someone must be inside. I always assumed it was just part of the independent Texas spirit.

Has the city not failed them?

It depends on what the city's responsibilities are. Is the city responsible for making sure everyone has a good home? What about lazy people? What about people who are unlucky? What about people who like their crappy house and just don't want anyone bothering them? Has the city failed drivers stuck in traffic on I-10? Has the city failed the HAIF community because the skyline isn't expanding enough? Has the city failed me because I don't have a pony?

Gentrification? Tearing down valued homes and businesses to replace them with crap. You call that decision making by a great city? Truth is, this city has made some very bad choices that have disadvantaged many.

Gentrification isn't a bad thing, but it's used as a dirty word by people with a particular agenda. Without gentrification and urban renewal the entire city would be wooden shacks along Buffalo Bayou. And what's wrong with building a townhome on a vacant lot? Don't people with a good education who have worked hard for a little money deserve to live somewhere? Should they be forced to wander the streets? Or would you prefer that they plow down what little is left of the Texas prairie to build more McMansions?

Remember, you can't be an environmentalist and be against gentrification.

[RedScare]

When I sit and think about it, I start to realize that even as great as Houston is already, it doesn't seem to be taking enough steps at a time to become even greater.

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

When are we going to stop tearing down historic places? If developers keep doing this, Houston will eventually be a city that doesn't have a single structure that outdates the year 1970. The city will be a brand new, sparkling hell hole.

And when will the architecture get better? It almost feels as if our city leaders really do not care about Houston's image, and are being extremely lazy and cheap in this town's growth.

I have been reading this post for the better part of a day, yet I cannot figure out what you are complaining about. Who is this "we" you speak of, and why do you insist that the City needs this "we" to build an overpriced playground for several hundred wealthy residents to be a "greater city"?

If you are concerned with the destruction of historic places, why are you pushing for a "Victory Park" to be built, since the only way to assemble the 80 acres of land needed to build it is to destroy many buildings. And, isn't Victory Park, to use your description, "a brand new, sparkling hell hole"?

As a general rule, city leaders are not in charge of architecture. If you are suggesting that they should be, I will personally lead the opposition to your proposal. As for laziness about our image, it appears that our civic leaders almost care TOO much about it, as shown by the annual deluge of image campaigns that are brought forth.

You, like many posters on this forum, appear to be dazzled by the lipstick on the pig. Dallas has many, many problems, from a persistently under leased downtown, to crime, to an inability to grow, to a city council that cannot put its racial problems behind it long enough to do some good for the city. Yet, you and others look at one 78 acre piece of land out of its 385 square miles, and proclaim it great. Victory Park will only provide housing for about 2,000 upscale residents of Dallas' 1.2 million population. At the same time, it continues to suck the life out of downtown and its 20% plus vacancy rate. As for gentrification, what has Dallas done for the hundreds of thousands of residents South of the Trinity River? I have no interest in emulating a city with as many or more problems than my own city has.

Perhaps because this is an architecture forum, we are inundated with topics like this. A city's worth is judged by how many buildings it has, not whether anyone lives or works in those buildings. Demands are made that cities MUST build newer shier buildings, ignoring the fact that the "city" does not build buildings, and developers will not build them unless it is profitable to do so. Perhaps if this were a political science forum, or a socioeconomics forum, we might actually look at the inner workings of our cities, how parks improve quality of life, how crime affects residents, how being hemmed in by suburban cities stifles growth, how REAL industry creates more jobs than an IMAGE of glamour.

Some no doubt will see this response as some sort of bashing. It is not. It is merely an observation that a veneer of shiny new buildings does not cure the underlying problems of cities, and that too many posters on this forum see a building or a development as more than it is. Mostly, this thread is a response to a disjointed topic with flawed assumptions.

Edited November 6, 2007 by RedScare

[N Judah]

What's wrong with gentrification?

I thought you didn't like yuppies....?

Anyway my thoughts on Houston are as follows:

I wish Houston had more of the things I like, and less of the things I don't like. Also, I wish Houston had more people like me, but not TOO many because I like to feel like I am special and/or rebellious/misunderstood.

sincerely

N Judah

Also, does anyone know how I can change my little "profile picture"/descriptor (under my name) back to Calpine Center?

Edited November 6, 2007 by N Judah

[nate]

What's Victory Park?

A project in Dallas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Park

I visited it for the first time last night. Dined at N9ne steakhouse before the Rockets/Mavs game. Shame about the Rockets late collapse.

It is a nice project. Not to my taste though. I wouldn't live there and will not return to dine.

Edited November 6, 2007 by nate

[TheNiche]

I thought you didn't like yuppies....?

I don't care for them, no. That doesn't mean that I'm at all inclined to tell them what they can or cannot do. If a neighborhood in which I live becomes overly yuppified, I will respond to that by moving. I adapt--I will not use connections with unscrupulous politicians to try and adapt others to my liking, just as I would prefer that they not use the same tactic to adapt me to their liking.

Edited November 6, 2007 by TheNiche

[musicman]

Some no doubt will see this response as some sort of bashing. It is not. It is merely an observation that a veneer of shiny new buildings does not cure the underlying problems of cities, and that too many posters on this forum see a building or a development as more than it is. Mostly, this thread is a response to a disjointed topic with flawed assumptions.

i think you hit the nail on the head.

[Gary]

I have been reading this post for the better part of a day, yet I cannot figure out what you are complaining about. Who is this "we" you speak of, and why do you insist that the City needs this "we" to build an overpriced playground for several hundred wealthy residents to be a "greater city"?

If you are concerned with the destruction of historic places, why are you pushing for a "Victory Park" to be built, since the only way to assemble the 80 acres of land needed to build it is to destroy many buildings. And, isn't Victory Park, to use your description, "a brand new, sparkling hell hole"?

As a general rule, city leaders are not in charge of architecture. If you are suggesting that they should be, I will personally lead the opposition to your proposal. As for laziness about our image, it appears that our civic leaders almost care TOO much about it, as shown by the annual deluge of image campaigns that are brought forth.

You, like many posters on this forum, appear to be dazzled by the lipstick on the pig. Dallas has many, many problems, from a persistently under leased downtown, to crime, to an inability to grow, to a city council that cannot put its racial problems behind it long enough to do some good for the city. Yet, you and others look at one 78 acre piece of land out of its 385 square miles, and proclaim it great. Victory Park will only provide housing for about 2,000 upscale residents of Dallas' 1.2 million population. At the same time, it continues to suck the life out of downtown and its 20% plus vacancy rate. As for gentrification, what has Dallas done for the hundreds of thousands of residents South of the Trinity River? I have no interest in emulating a city with as many or more problems than my own city has.

Perhaps because this is an architecture forum, we are inundated with topics like this. A city's worth is judged by how many buildings it has, not whether anyone lives or works in those buildings. Demands are made that cities MUST build newer shier buildings, ignoring the fact that the "city" does not build buildings, and developers will not build them unless it is profitable to do so. Perhaps if this were a political science forum, or a socioeconomics forum, we might actually look at the inner workings of our cities, how parks improve quality of life, how crime affects residents, how being hemmed in by suburban cities stifles growth, how REAL industry creates more jobs than an IMAGE of glamour.

Some no doubt will see this response as some sort of bashing. It is not. It is merely an observation that a veneer of shiny new buildings does not cure the underlying problems of cities, and that too many posters on this forum see a building or a development as more than it is. Mostly, this thread is a response to a disjointed topic with flawed assumptions.

Now that's a damn good post.

[713 To 214]

[H-Town Man]

When I sit and think about it, I start to realize that even as great as Houston is already, it doesn't seem to be taking enough steps at a time to become even greater.

When are we going to up and build our own "Victory Park"? (the Pavilions doesn't count).

When are we going to stop tearing down historic places? If developers keep doing this, Houston will eventually be a city that doesn't have a single structure that outdates the year 1970. The city will be a brand new, sparkling hell hole.

And when will the architecture get better? It almost feels as if our city leaders really do not care about Houston's image, and are being extremely lazy and cheap in this town's growth.

Just add in something about how there should be light rail on Richmond and you've summed up the past six years of this forum.

[yawn.]