Ruining The Galleria Skyline?

[Jeebus]

I just backtracked this thread once I realized there was a conversation about an 80 story tower..

I'm sorry, but how can anyone here be okay with an 80 story tower going up adjacent to the Transco tower? That will ruin the Galleria skyline. You know they would be forced to turn off the rotating lighthouse spotlight as Deyaar nimbys on the 60th through 80th floors would whine about the beam hitting their windows.

Build the damn thing anywhere else - preferablly downtown or the med center - or cut the height to not ruin a great architectural icon for Houston. There's no need for a building taller than the Transco outside of downtown anyway.

Just my two cents..

[Montrose1100]

Aw come on Jeebus! Its progress! Who knows, maybe it will be a lot better looking then the Williams Tower... But I'm glad we have another super tall at least in discussion. And I love the healthy battle between Uptown & Downtown.

[swtsig]

I just backtracked this thread once I realized there was a conversation about an 80 story tower..

I'm sorry, but how can anyone here be okay with an 80 story tower going up adjacent to the Transco tower? That will ruin the Galleria skyline. You know they would be forced to turn off the rotating lighthouse spotlight as Deyaar nimbys on the 60th through 80th floors would whine about the beam hitting their windows.

Build the damn thing anywhere else - preferablly downtown or the med center - or cut the height to not ruin a great architectural icon for Houston. There's no need for a building taller than the Transco outside of downtown anyway.

Just my two cents..

completely disagree with this sentiment... how will adding an 80-story building "ruin the galleria skyline" exactly? the only way this building blocks transco is if you're directly south of both buildings. and while the rotating lighthouse would be unfortunate, are you really whining about that? really??? just put a rotating lighthouse on the new building... voila! problem solved!

i just have a really hard time understanding your line of thought... here we are talking about adding the first supertall in houston in a 1/4 century and you oppose it because of a lighthouse. and yes, i'm completely disregarding your "ruins the skyline" complaint because i just fail to see how adding an 80-story tower near a 65-story tower ruins anything.

[Pumapayam]

i just have a really hard time understanding your line of thought... here we are talking about adding the first supertall in houston in a 1/4 century and you oppose it because of a lighthouse. and yes, i'm completely disregarding your "ruins the skyline" complaint because i just fail to see how adding an 80-story tower near a 65-story tower ruins anything.

It would end up being the tallest in Houston, and put uptown in an interesting situation when it comes to urban centers and this one having a taller building than the downtown CBD.

[Trae]

Hopefully it will help with the redevelopment of those damn strip centers into something urban. Especially with the rail coming in, too.

[swtsig]

Hopefully it will help with the redevelopment of those damn strip centers into something urban. Especially with the rail coming in, too.

that is exactly my line of thinking... the potential combination of these projects + rail will definitely revitalize this area. i have no concern whatsoever with any sort of misconception people may have in regards to the uptown v. CBD debate since i dont see view them as competing adversaries. as someone else mentioned awhile back, it's time we start looking at the TMC/CBD/Uptown triangle as this city's urban core, because i think that's where all of this is heading.

[Jeebus]

I'm not so desperate to see an 80 story building in Houston that I'm willing to sell out the Galleria's beacon that all Houstonians know, and look to every time they're heading that direction. If it must be built in Houston, take it downtown, with the other super-talls.

[wxman]

It would end up being the tallest in Houston, and put uptown in an interesting situation when it comes to urban centers and this one having a taller building than the downtown CBD.

Atlanta does it and it looks just fine.

[Trae]

Well, now they can look at an 80-story tower instead. It's not like they are tearing down the Williams Tower.

[FIREhat]

Yeah, I don't see how any advocate of growth in Houston could be unhappy about an 80-storey building in one of the most vibrant parts of the city. If anything, it will accentuate Transco, which looks pretty lonely now from most perspectives.

[marc]

I'm not so desperate to see an 80 story building in Houston that I'm willing to sell out the Galleria's beacon that all Houstonians know, and look to every time they're heading that direction. If it must be built in Houston, take it downtown, with the other super-talls.

You know, i used to think EXACTLY like that too. But, i have changed a bit in my perspective. i always wanted the supertalls in DT and sprinkle the midrises in either UT or MT. i must say, though, the midrises (30-40 stories) that are beginning to accumulate in the south of DT are growing on me, as well as some of the taller towers beginning to peak out over the UT and MT skylines. Here is my concern with let's say a 1000 footer in DT. LOCATION. i am afraid our illustrious planners will bury it so it cannot take advantage of its design. Think about it- former Transco Tower (Williams now.....always Transco to me....HEY, i was part of Hands Across America with Marvin Zindler in the 80's right in front of Transco), as i say, Transco is an AWESOME skyscraper with a Neo Art Deco design, but if it was buried in among One Shell Plaza and that area, would Houstonians see it as such an icon? (unless it was at the forefront on the skyline coming from West Houston I-10) Make sense?

i don't mind if someone wants to build an 80 storey scraper in UT or MT for that matter. i would hope that in UT, it would not be too close to "Transco" as to not convey an attitude of competiion, but rather, a complimentary building. i am thinking of one of my favorite scrapers in Chi-Town. It is suspiciously similar in design to the proposed Bank of Southwest Building (to be built in H-Town) but is set right in back of the Aon building. In that location, it is completely obscure to the average Chicagoan. Only scraper buffs like you all and i would even notice it. i would be afraid something like that would happen if something was to be built in DT which has a height of say, 1000 ft. At this point, unless it is built on the block north of One Shell Plaza or somewhere in the southern part of DT, i think the next signature tower built in DT should be at least 1200 ft.

At least, if even a 800-900 footer was built in UT, it would get A LOT of exposure.

What do you all think?

m.

[wxman]

You know, i used to think EXACTLY like that too. But, i have changed a bit in my perspective. i always wanted the supertalls in DT and sprinkle the midrises in either UT or MT. i must say, though, the midrises (30-40 stories) that are beginning to accumulate in the south of DT are growing on me, as well as some of the taller towers beginning to peak out over the UT and MT skylines. Here is my concern with let's say a 1000 footer in DT. LOCATION. i am afraid our illustrious planners will bury it so it cannot take advantage of its design. Think about it- former Transco Tower (Williams now.....always Transco to me....HEY, i was part of Hands Across America with Marvin Zindler in the 80's right in front of Transco), as i say, Transco is an AWESOME skyscraper with a Neo Art Deco design, but if it was buried in among One Shell Plaza and that area, would Houstonians see it as such an icon? (unless it was at the forefront on the skyline coming from West Houston I-10) Make sense?

i don't mind if someone wants to build an 80 storey scraper in UT or MT for that matter. i would hope that in UT, it would not be too close to "Transco" as to not convey an attitude of competiion, but rather, a complimentary building. i am thinking of one of my favorite scrapers in Chi-Town. It is suspiciously similar in design to the proposed Bank of Southwest Building (to be built in H-Town) but is set right in back of the Aon building. In that location, it is completely obscure to the average Chicagoan. Only scraper buffs like you all and i would even notice it. i would be afraid something like that would happen if something was to be built in DT which has a height of say, 1000 ft. At this point, unless it is built on the block north of One Shell Plaza or somewhere in the southern part of DT, i think the next signature tower built in DT should be at least 1200 ft.

At least, if even a 800-900 footer was built in UT, it would get A LOT of exposure.

What do you all think?

m.

Case in point...Mainplace. I think this building will be lost in the midst of all the others. It won't be visible from 45 N, It won't be visible from UT or anypart of W. Houston for that matter. I think the only area it will be "noticable" is the Estex Frwy and the Gulf Frwy.

I'll tell you what though, for a 30-story condo tower, 2727 Kirby sure does stick out...especially rounding the Pierce Elevated. (Sniff Sniff), they grow up so fast.

[editor]

What do you all think?

Put it in Uptown. Give it a pointy top. Add a beacon that rotates in sync with the one on the Williams Tower.

Voila! Instant double landmark.

[Jeebus]

Yeah, I don't see how any advocate of growth in Houston could be unhappy about an 80-storey building in one of the most vibrant parts of the city. If anything, it will accentuate Transco, which looks pretty lonely now from most perspectives.

And that's exactly why. There's no reason to mess with the Uptown skyline. The Transco tower doesn't look lonely - it looks magnificent rising above all the other buildings. To let another building trump it, less than a block away no less, is just insulting.

It is a metaphorical lighthouse of sorts for those traveling to and through Houston.

[JWW]

And that's exactly why. There's no reason to mess with the Uptown skyline. The Transco tower doesn't look lonely - it looks magnificent rising above all the other buildings. To let another building trump it, less than a block away no less, is just insulting.

It is a metaphorical lighthouse of sorts for those traveling to and through Houston.

Imagine if this type of argument had won in Chicago with Trump's Int'l Hotel & Tower, WTC in New York, Comcast's building in Philadelphia, and these a few, off-the-cuff domestic examples. Glad lenders don't have these attitudes. Get over the rotating beacon.

[jc281]

And that's exactly why. There's no reason to mess with the Uptown skyline. The Transco tower doesn't look lonely - it looks magnificent rising above all the other buildings. To let another building trump it, less than a block away no less, is just insulting.

It is a metaphorical lighthouse of sorts for those traveling to and through Houston.

that kinda made me sick. but yea its a total landmark and the base of optown...now. galleria isnt going anywhere but UP. if the rail goes in and such, we better get used to higher and higher stuff.

[ricco67]

Imagine if this type of argument had won in Chicago with Trump's Int'l Hotel & Tower, WTC in New York, Comcast's building in Philadelphia, and these a few, off-the-cuff domestic examples. Glad lenders don't have these attitudes. Get over the rotating beacon.

maybe the city should state that the tallest building in the area SHOULD have a beacon on it.

[Trae]

Imagine if this type of argument had won in Chicago with Trump's Int'l Hotel & Tower, WTC in New York, Comcast's building in Philadelphia, and these a few, off-the-cuff domestic examples. Glad lenders don't have these attitudes. Get over the rotating beacon.

Agreed. Give this thing a beacon if a beacon is needed that badly.

[JWW]

Ok - all agreed - the highest building in the Galleria area will have a beacon. Maybe we can start a "save the beacon" fundraiser next...

[Jeebus]

Imagine if this type of argument had won in Chicago with Trump's Int'l Hotel & Tower, WTC in New York, Comcast's building in Philadelphia, and these a few, off-the-cuff domestic examples. Glad lenders don't have these attitudes. Get over the rotating beacon.

Your point is moot. All of the examples you give were built in their respective city's central business district.

Stop selling out Houston just to satisfy your high-rise fetishes.

[livincinco]

Your point is moot. All of the examples you give were built in their respective city's central business district.

Stop selling out Houston just to satisfy your high-rise fetishes.

Shanghai's tallest buildings are in the Pudong district not their central business district and those areas are further apart than Uptown and Downtown are in Houston.

[Mister X]

Jeebus Christ, that's pretty stupid! Give me my 80 story tower. I love Williams tower as much as the next guy, but they can build an 80 story tower directly in front of Williams tower and I would still welcome it. JJW can do what he wants to, but I would sell out my own mother to satisfy MY own high-rise fetishes. And YOU can't stop me.

BRING ON THE CRANES!

[JWW]

Your point is moot. All of the examples you give were built in their respective city's central business district.

Stop selling out Houston just to satisfy your high-rise fetishes.

My point is not moot, at all.... the point is that a skyline, whether central business or elsewhere, is not negatively affected because a 'tall' building is put in place. And your only 'point' is that it would get in the way of a stupid beacon on top of a building!

Next, a high-rise "fetish" ? - can we deal without the rhetoric here? Think about what you are stating; you are complaining about others' high-rise 'festishes' getting in the way of blocking a light coming off of another high-rise? ??? What if there had been a beacon on the top of a 20-30 story building in the galleria area when Williams/Transco was developed? Would you have opposed that?

"Stop selling out Houston".... I dont think I need to respond to this one.

[Jeebus]

My point is not moot, at all.... the point is that a skyline, whether central business or elsewhere, is not negatively affected because a 'tall' building is put in place. And your only 'point' is that it would get in the way of a stupid beacon on top of a building!

Next, a high-rise "fetish" ? - can we deal without the rhetoric here? Think about what you are stating; you are complaining about others' high-rise 'festishes' getting in the way of blocking a light coming off of another high-rise? ??? What if there had been a beacon on the top of a 20-30 story building in the galleria area when Williams/Transco was developed? Would you have opposed that?

It's not the beacon. It's the fact that we already have a super-tall in the Galleria district, which is already outside of our CBD. Do we really need another super-tall next to it, when we have block after block of one story strip centers that are 40/60 commercial space to parking lot?

How about a little common sense infill? Two 40 story buildings would far better serve for buillding a more pedestrian friendly urban environment. You double your potential ground floor retail space. Understanding that taller does not equal better (especially for the light-rail) - that's what separates the fetish.

[JWW]

It's not the beacon. It's the fact that we already have a super-tall in the Galleria district, which is already outside of our CBD. Do we really need another super-tall next to it, when we have block after block of one story strip centers that are 40/60 commercial space to parking lot?

How about a little common sense infill? Two 40 story buildings would far better serve for buillding a more pedestrian friendly urban environment. You double your potential ground floor retail space. Understanding that taller does not equal better (especially for the light-rail) - that's what separates the fetish.

1. Glad you are dropping the beacon discussion.

2. "Do we really NEED another super-tall..." - I have a fundamentally different opinion here. I don't look at increased rents (higher floors obviously command these) and a more DRAMATIC skyline from super-talls as something we must put up with...I welcome them (generally).

3. I agree about the undesirable strip centers/parking lots in the area. However, what's the point here? Advise Deyaar to buy those properties and build towers on those sites, as well, if you want to do something about it. Opposition to a super-tall has nothing to do with those under-utilized (in some of our opinions) properties nearby. Build, and build up, on all the sites is my answer.

4. "Two 40 story buildings would far better serve..." - again, Deyaar is not Emaar (Dubai Government-controlled developer rather than completely private as Deyaar is) - Deyaar's managers have one responsibility and that is to bring MAXIMUM value to its SHAREHOLDERS (as opposed to local residents). I am sure you trust Deyaar's d.diligence team to decide whether to take on the political, construction, legal, and financial risks of building a more-expensive 80 (supposed) story building rather than two 40 story buildings on its site....projected reward vs. risk... Deyaar can figure out which strategy will bring that maximum value home - unless you want to propose a pro-forma to them.

5. I won't comment on the importance of light-rail here, but I (and, hopefully, most here) do not equate taller = better. But I do equate taller = higher construction costs as well as taller = higher rents. It just depends which monies outweigh the others.

[swtsig]

It's not the beacon. It's the fact that we already have a super-tall in the Galleria district, which is already outside of our CBD. Do we really need another super-tall next to it, when we have block after block of one story strip centers that are 40/60 commercial space to parking lot?

How about a little common sense infill? Two 40 story buildings would far better serve for buillding a more pedestrian friendly urban environment. You double your potential ground floor retail space. Understanding that taller does not equal better (especially for the light-rail) - that's what separates the fetish.

so then focus on the multiple 25+ story buildings scheduled to go up as opposed to the one 80-story... several office buildings in the 20-30 range are planned/proposed for uptown to go along with the several high-rise residential and mixed use developments (titan, cosmo, blvd place, river oaks district, 2200 post oak, etc.).... uptown can handle the best of both worlds at this point, imo.

and supposedly the landscape design and architecture for the new post oak light rail line is out of this world, which would further enhance the urban landscape uptown and promote even more urban infill.

[Pumapayam]

so then focus on the multiple 25+ story buildings scheduled to go up as opposed to the one 80-story... several office buildings in the 20-30 range are planned/proposed for uptown to go along with the several high-rise residential and mixed use developments (titan, cosmo, blvd place, river oaks district, 2200 post oak, etc.).... uptown can handle the best of both worlds at this point, imo.

and supposedly the landscape design and architecture for the new post oak light rail line is out of this world, which would further enhance the urban landscape uptown and promote even more urban infill.

These tall buildings represent a a symbol of wealth and power by whomever develops/owns it. That is why so many buildings in Houston were built in the late 70's early 80's. Transco was a perfect example of this, even though it was not the tallest, but I am sure many people are under the impression it is. If someone wants to claim the tallest building in Houston, they do it for that reason.

2. "Do we really NEED another super-tall..." - I have a fundamentally different opinion here. I don't look at increased rents (higher floors obviously command these) and a more DRAMATIC skyline from super-talls as something we must put up with...I welcome them (generally).

We need something that will bring attention back to building tall structures in Houston. Everything in the past decade that has been significant has been between 30-45 stories. Why not make an 80 story mammoth that everyone will notice.

[wxman]

Williams is not technically a "super-tall." The building must clear 1,000 ft for that designation.

[swtsig]

Does anyone know who owns the land under 24 hr....and what's supposed to be going on there?

office building.

[sheeats]

The Transco tower doesn't look lonely - it looks magnificent rising above all the other buildings. To let another building trump it, less than a block away no less, is just insulting.

It is a metaphorical lighthouse of sorts for those traveling to and through Houston.

THIS. 100% agreed. I'm a nostalgic sap, and Transco will always hold my heart.