GreenStreet: Mixed-Use Development At 1201 Fannin St.

[TheNiche]

TheNiche, what type of lighting do you consider "gimmicky?" By Houston standards, it seems as though any lighting that is more involved/thought-out/decorative than the barest of bare-bones utilitarian falls into the category of "gimmicky."

In my opinion, add a little strategic lighting to a few key buildings, bridges, and landscaping, and all-the-sudden Houston is a much more attractive and inviting city.

I'd like to take a page from places like Singapore, New Orleans, Tokyo, Sapporo (in the winter), Montreal, Miami, Paris, or, even, Hong Kong. When can we get over comparing ourselves to Dallas all the time?! Houston should stop restricting landlords and let the market downtown dictate the lighting. If a building owner wants to sell space to an electronic billboard company, let them. Variety is a good thing (or, the spice of life or whatever). Blocks and blocks of blank walls is a bad thing. Or, even better, create a initiative with Central Houston and key landlords and encourage more and better lighting implementation.

Houston, especially downtown, needs more PPPs. A stronger and better-informed, well-traveled public sector should be able to guide our center city towards becoming a more visually-interesting, unique place - gimmicky and all.

I'm all for outdoor advertising. Our sign ordinances are far too strict. The more dynamically-lit billboards, the better! But that serves a purpose, which is to enhance brand awareness and loyalty while generating revenue for owners of commercial property. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, and some of your examples are of cities that profit from it themselves. To that end, I think that downtown and other parts of town are poorly lit. But I cited Victory in Dallas for several reasons. Firstly, it is a good example of gimmickry, and because it is a city nearby that is similar in terms of climate and urban geography, it probably serves as a more common frame of reference than somewhere like Sapporo. Also...this is subject matter that has already been argued on multiple threads of HAIF for years and years, and Dallas is always a datapoint.

As for PPPs, I'm against them. There's too much opportunity for abuse of power and/or incompetence to cost the City millions upon millions of dollars. Have you researched the various 380 Agreements? As much as the Heights crowd complains about the Ainbinder agreement, there are other agreements that make Ainbinder's look like a model of success by comparison. They basically handed Ed Wulfe a $2 million check on the Gulfgate deal, which received no press.

Again, in general, the public sector just needs to GET OUT OF THE WAY. Regulate and tax if they must, but GET OUT OF THE WAY.

[Pleak]

TheNiche, what type of lighting do you consider "gimmicky?" By Houston standards, it seems as though any lighting that is more involved/thought-out/decorative than the barest of bare-bones utilitarian falls into the category of "gimmicky." In my opinion, add a little strategic lighting to a few key buildings, bridges, and landscaping, and all-the-sudden Houston is a much more attractive and inviting city. I'd like to take a page from places like Singapore, New Orleans, Tokyo, Sapporo (in the winter), Montreal, Miami, Paris, or, even, Hong Kong. When can we get over comparing ourselves to Dallas all the time?! Houston should stop restricting landlords and let the market downtown dictate the lighting. If a building owner wants to sell space to an electronic billboard company, let them. Variety is a good thing (or, the spice of life or whatever). Blocks and blocks of blank walls is a bad thing. Or, even better, create a initiative with Central Houston and key landlords and encourage more and better lighting implementation. Houston, especially downtown, needs more PPPs. A stronger and better-informed, well-traveled public sector should be able to guide our center city towards becoming a more visually-interesting, unique place - gimmicky and all.

Which one of us was this directed to?

Sorry - I screwed up the quoting feature. It was to to the post listed above (I hope). See bold. Then in the next paragraph more PPP's are being advocated.

I'm more in line with Niche (can't believe I said that - shhh!). Government put the rules in place and then back up and get out of the way.

[largeTEXAS]

A strong public and private sector are not mutually exclusive. Conversely, well-planned city building is almost  always reliant on the heavy involvement of both.

Houston has just long done a poor job implementing public private partnerships, I agree. Instead, and worse, in my opinion, our city has acted as though the public sector were't involved and struck all sorts of backroom and closet deals - see all Wulfe deals, especially both Gulfgate and BLVD Place, just about every ex-urban master planned community, etc. 

Instead of turning a blind eye to the fact that major projects almost always rely on public sector involvement, let's give the planning agencies more visibility, and, therefore, scrutinize them better.

Houston's poor track record of PPP in the past should be acknowledged and learned from. This does not mean we should simply turn against them. Instead of shunning the public sector's involvement, let's make it more official, accountable and better scrutinized, and we should see better results. 

Name any successful major real estate project in the world that hasn't relied on the public sector's involvement to some extent. 

If downtown is ever going to successfully build the types of projects we've discussed on this board such as the Buffalo Bayou "river walk," major TOD, or any other major mixed-use projects, the public sector will have to be involved. Mind as well acknowledge its existence. In the past couple of years, Houston has started to kind of get it, I feel. See Discovery Green and Marvy Finger's One Park Place, Market Square Park, and the soon-to-be, I hope, IAC arts complex in Midtown. 

Pleak, I can't believe you don't think Houston is as dense as Hong Kong or Tokyo! But, what does density have to do with lighting? Im missing your point.

[TheNiche]

I don't know what you mean by "strong public and private sector". That phrase has no meaning and can be spun rhetorically however I so choose.

The City of Houston doesn't have any say over new exurban or master planned communities, and even when we had the ability to threaten The Woodlands with annexation, they flinched and ended up paying us tribute in order to avoid our wrath...even though it didn't make financial sense for us to annex them in the first place. We got the better end of the deal, so I don't really understand where you're coming from on this.

Suggesting that we give government more scrutiny is self-defeating. The people interesting in scrutinizing are already doing so, but most people aren't interesting in listening to the lurid stories, really at all. And what it comes down to is that the City didn't let Wulfe get away with the Gulfgate 380; the people let it happen. They're like that. Real estate finance is complex and beyond the comprehension of most people, even intelligent people, if and when they become aware of it. And that is why government powers must be reeled in. It's because constituents are incapable of identifying and punishing deliberate cronyism. It isn't enough that you acknowledge the problem and decree an end to it. And even if you ruled the world and everybody trusted you, you'd eventually die and your successor would screw it up again. And that is why hard-and-fast limitations on government powers are often the way to go. And perhaps nowhere is that more true than a big city, chock full of unknown bigshots.

[RedScare]

I was going to respond to largeTexas' screed until I realized that he contradicted himself so much that it became clear that he is assessing a different definition...or perhaps the wrong definition altogether...to the term "public/private partnership.The most obvious PPP downtown would be the convention center hotel. Perhaps the new soccer stadium could be considered a PPP, though the reality is that the City purchased the land and provided infrastructure improvements, while the Dynamo built a stadium on it. At the end of the lease, the stadium and land become the property of the City. This is more accurately a land lease. But, in some respects, this could be considered a PPP, as could the other 3 stadiums used by Houston's sports teams. But, that is really stretching the definition.

Discovery Green is simply a City owned park with millions in private donations used to build it. One Park Place and HP were private ventures using public subsidies. Because the City would receive some revenue in a PPP, simple giveaways of city revenue to encourage building of a project is not a PPP. The Ainbinder 380 agreement could be considered a PPP, as a private entity builds public streets and sidewalks, and is then reimbursed by the City. But, that PPP turned liberal Walmart haters against PPPs. Conservatives already philosophically hate them, leaving few voters in Houston left to support them.

Since this is a thread about HP, I can only surmise that the injection of PPPs into the thread suggest that government building of shopping centers is supported by largeTexas. I have two responses to that. One, we have plenty of shopping centers being built by private interests already. We don't need to help them much. And two, the City gave HP $7 million to build HP, and it ended up in bankruptcy. Do we really need to invest in economically risky ventures?

Also note downtown Dallas' experience with subsidizing downtown ventures. They have given away hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to jumpstart their downtown. While a few of their derelict buildings have been renovated, people stay away in droves. On a recent trip, when I asked if there was anything worth going downtown for, the residents laughed at the suggestion. One even said, "This isn't Houston", which I took as at least a backhanded compliment.

Regardless your definition of a PPP, current budget difficulties at all levels of local government dictate that you won't see any large scale government spending on non-necessities anytime soon.

[Pleak]

Pleak, I can't believe you don't think Houston is as dense as Hong Kong or Tokyo! But, what does density have to do with lighting? Im missing your point.

What I was trying to convey in my rambling post was that every so often, I read threads that all downtown needs to fix its nightlife/residential population/shopping/hipness problems is to allow some neon/led strips to be tacked on the buildings and voila! Success! So the only thing holding back a booming downtown after 5 pm is bright shiny things?

I agree - release the lighting regulations. But downtown will be just the same. There will not be a sudden influx of people flying in to IAH to stare in awe at the bright lights of the big city. (Maybe the Spring Chickees! ) If you want a bustling downtown after hours with residents, shoppers, eaters, partiers, etc. you need the density in all of Houston to make it worthwhile to go downtown. Otherwise it will always be so much cheaper to build your club on Washington Ave. and your condo in Midtown and still be within spitting distance of dt.

The lights will come with density is my point not the other way around. The streets of HK and Tokyo have gazillions of cool signs because there were already millions of people living there and they are trying to get their attention to sell them something. The signs weren't there first and the people moved there just to look at them.

[largeTEXAS]

Pleak, if Tokyo or Hong Kong had the sign ordinance Houston has, it still wouldn't have any lights or billboards on its buildings, no matter how many gazillions of people on the streets.

[largeTEXAS]

The Houston Pavilions is a monumental disappointment, in my opinion. The architecture is weak, the orientation backwards, and the public subsidies mostly wasted. I have to admit, though, I was excited and hopeful before it was built that it would make a sizable and positive impact downtown.

Even though it was the mid- to late-2000's and investing in bad real estate finance was en vogue, I don't believe the City (or County, in the case of HP), should have given any subsidies to a shopping complex with a very suspect, at best, pro forma, without, at the very least, tying them to certain performance, i.e. outward-facing orientation of retail storefronts, especially along Dallas St., the use of standard retail window glass that's much more transparent, and more and better landscaping. 

My point on the PPP/public subsidy issue is twofold. 1. Houston needs more public sector involvement to adequately transition to being a denser 21st Century city. But, 2., our current planning department and other governmental agencies that have been in charge of making decisions on the use and conditions of the public's money in regard to development projects have been pretty impudent.

RedScare, you're probably right that we likely won't be seeing many new public-backed projects in the near future. 

Inevitably, though, Houston will need PPPs and public subsidies, as any major city has and does, for many of the large-scale projects it wants to build so that Houston can "transform into one of the next great global cities of the future." I would prefer a department of qualified planners informing those decisions rather than what we've had, which has given us El Mercado, HP, and all the soon-to-be built communities along the Grand Parkway. 

No government agency can be perfect, and there will always be mistakes, but a better, beefed-up planning office with actual powers and cojones and the legislative ability to help create and plan strategic city-benefiting projects is far better than an anemic department, like the one we have now, that has been given close to no official authority over how the city takes shape. 

It's an interesting and challenging time in the city's development. Houston is evolving from a place with almost endless land and a laissez-faire attitude towards development and policy to a city where density is starting to demand a different way of thinking, planning, and building. I think it's time to start acting like a big city where transparency is required for the public sector's involvement in development. I applaud Mayor Parker's efforts with Metro. I believe a similar standard should be set for the planning dept.

As for lighting, I think it's pretty straightforward. Map an area where certain signage and lighting would be allowed (the zone in downtown and Midtown where parking isn't required makes sense) and let the landlords do the rest. If a building owner wants to put an electronic billboard that reaches above 40' off the ground, let them. The market will dictate to them what works. And, I still think neon is cool, no matter how unpopular it is on this board. The no-neon ordinance evolved out of fear of sex businesses having neon legs flapping all around, etc. If you don't want pink neon legs, just restrict sex businesses from using neon, or something like that..

To your comment, TheNiche, about suburban developing receiving no help from the city government. The City is indeed involved with each and every greenfield suburban development, mainly through new and costly infrastructure, which is a heck of a lot more than is given to most infill developers.

[TheNiche]

To your comment, TheNiche, about suburban developing receiving no help from the city government. The City is indeed involved with each and every greenfield suburban development, mainly through new and costly infrastructure, which is a heck of a lot more than is given to most infill developers.

You don't know what you're talking about. 1) The extent of the City limits largely preclude the possibility of new greenfield development except in areas that have been stunted by blight for decades. 2) It is the City's effective policy to annex any commercial property that gets built in their ETJ, but not residential neighborhoods; this is to tax non-voters on the value of the property and to obtain sales taxes from residents to whom the City is not required to provide services. 3) Furthermore, when a developer comes along with a plan for a decent-sized subdivision in a part of the incorporated City that does not have infrastructure, the City's policy is to make the developer form a new in-City municipal utility district. In so doing, the City taxes the new subdivision to pay for everyone else's infrastructure, then makes them also pay for their own infrastructure on their own.

[largeTEXAS]

You don't know what you're talking about. 1) The extent of the City limits largely preclude the possibility of new greenfield development except in areas that have been stunted by blight for decades. 2) It is the City's effective policy to annex any commercial property that gets built in their ETJ, but not residential neighborhoods; this is to tax non-voters on the value of the property and to obtain sales taxes from residents to whom the City is not required to provide services. 3) Furthermore, when a developer comes along with a plan for a decent-sized subdivision in a part of the incorporated City that does not have infrastructure, the City's policy is to make the developer form a new in-City municipal utility district. In so doing, the City taxes the new subdivision to pay for everyone else's infrastructure, then makes them also pay for their own infrastructure on their own.

Man, TheNiche, you must be buds with the good 'ole Billy Burge and all his associates that developed Cinco Ranch; former Mayor, Lanier; the Grand Parkway Association; Texas State Highway Commission; Ed Emmett; and the North Houston Association, just to name a few, to believe all that. I wish that were the way it worked. Sadly, our tax dollars (a little under $10 Billion just for a few of the major projects) have gone into road building and all sorts of other infrastructure improvements that, in turn, fund private suburban and greenfield development. You are correct, the City is not responsible for all of it, but it all comes out of the taxpayers pockets, whether it`s the City, the State, or Federal Stimulus money. Imagine what $10 Billion could have done for Houston inside the Beltway:

1. Entire Buffalo Bayou Master Plan, estimated $5.6 Billion

2. Entire light rail system, estimated $3 Billion

3. City-proposed Astrodome renovation and redevlopment, estimated $1.35 Billion

[RedScare]

The Houston Pavilions is a monumental disappointment, in my opinion. The architecture is weak, the orientation backwards, and the public subsidies mostly wasted. I have to admit, though, I was excited and hopeful before it was built that it would make a sizable and positive impact downtown.

Even though it was the mid- to late-2000's and investing in bad real estate finance was en vogue, I don't believe the City (or County, in the case of HP), should have given any subsidies to a shopping complex with a very suspect, at best, pro forma, without, at the very least, tying them to certain performance, i.e. outward-facing orientation of retail storefronts, especially along Dallas St., the use of standard retail window glass that's much more transparent, and more and better landscaping.

My point on the PPP/public subsidy issue is twofold. 1. Houston needs more public sector involvement to adequately transition to being a denser 21st Century city. But, 2., our current planning department and other governmental agencies that have been in charge of making decisions on the use and conditions of the public's money in regard to development projects have been pretty impudent.

RedScare, you're probably right that we likely won't be seeing many new public-backed projects in the near future.

Inevitably, though, Houston will need PPPs and public subsidies, as any major city has and does, for many of the large-scale projects it wants to build so that Houston can "transform into one of the next great global cities of the future." I would prefer a department of qualified planners informing those decisions rather than what we've had, which has given us El Mercado, HP, and all the soon-to-be built communities along the Grand Parkway.

No government agency can be perfect, and there will always be mistakes, but a better, beefed-up planning office with actual powers and cojones and the legislative ability to help create and plan strategic city-benefiting projects is far better than an anemic department, like the one we have now, that has been given close to no official authority over how the city takes shape.

It's an interesting and challenging time in the city's development. Houston is evolving from a place with almost endless land and a laissez-faire attitude towards development and policy to a city where density is starting to demand a different way of thinking, planning, and building. I think it's time to start acting like a big city where transparency is required for the public sector's involvement in development. I applaud Mayor Parker's efforts with Metro. I believe a similar standard should be set for the planning dept.

As for lighting, I think it's pretty straightforward. Map an area where certain signage and lighting would be allowed (the zone in downtown and Midtown where parking isn't required makes sense) and let the landlords do the rest. If a building owner wants to put an electronic billboard that reaches above 40' off the ground, let them. The market will dictate to them what works. And, I still think neon is cool, no matter how unpopular it is on this board. The no-neon ordinance evolved out of fear of sex businesses having neon legs flapping all around, etc. If you don't want pink neon legs, just restrict sex businesses from using neon, or something like that..

To your comment, TheNiche, about suburban developing receiving no help from the city government. The City is indeed involved with each and every greenfield suburban development, mainly through new and costly infrastructure, which is a heck of a lot more than is given to most infill developers.

A couple of points here. One, the city and county investment in HP was not overly substantial when compared to what other cities have done. I believe the city gave HP $7 million for infrastructure improvements. Compare that to the tens of millions Dallas has given to developers of a single renovated building. I believe their biggest giveaway was $142 million for one renovation. And, while that single building looks good, the impact on downtown revitalization was marginal, at best. Houston (thankfully, in my opinion) simply does not have the history of huge government giveaways that some other cities have.

Second, planning and development departments take their cues from the elected official in charge, in this case, Mayor Parker. Far from being a proponent of more density, Mayor Parker is against further density. Her huge expansion of historic districts was an attempt to forever limit the density of large sections of inner loop neighborhoods. Her new restriction on tall building setbacks is an attempt to limit density and the areas where development of taller buildings can occur. The mapping of areas where the setback ordinance does not apply is straight up zoning, where only small areas of the city may densify. While some people may appreciate the attempt at clumping dense buildings together, the net effect is to make large section of the city off limits to densification. In this regard, Mayor Parker is no patron saint of densification. Far from it.

[TheNiche]

I agree that the system is royally screwed up and that there's a lot of taxation without proportionate representation going on. I'd be all in favor of dialing back County property taxes within incorporated municipalities. That would help the City of Houston; City officials would love that. I'd also be in favor of revoking Limited-Purpose Annexations. That would hurt the City of Houston; City officials would hate that. I'd also be in favor of getting the federal government out of the business of local transportation funding, but I don't think that any City or County officials would like that idea. Hopefully you can see that I mostly just want justice for the constituent.

The difference between us, I think, is that whereas you are a pro-City partisan, I recognize that two thirds of our regional population are not constituents of the City of Houston, that they comprise a substantial tax base, and that they deserve to take out what they pay in. I also seem to understand the concept of political boundaries a fair bit better, and limitations of powers.

[kylejack]

Second, planning and development departments take their cues from the elected official in charge, in this case, Mayor Parker. Far from being a proponent of more density, Mayor Parker is against further density. Her huge expansion of historic districts was an attempt to forever limit the density of large sections of inner loop neighborhoods. Her new restriction on tall building setbacks is an attempt to limit density and the areas where development of taller buildings can occur. The mapping of areas where the setback ordinance does not apply is straight up zoning, where only small areas of the city may densify. While some people may appreciate the attempt at clumping dense buildings together, the net effect is to make large section of the city off limits to densification. In this regard, Mayor Parker is no patron saint of densification. Far from it.

And let's not forget the new increased parking requirements for bars and restaurants.

[samagon]

The Houston Pavilions is a monumental disappointment, in my opinion. The architecture is weak, the orientation backwards, and the public subsidies mostly wasted. I have to admit, though, I was excited and hopeful before it was built that it would make a sizable and positive impact downtown.

Even though it was the mid- to late-2000's and investing in bad real estate finance was en vogue, I don't believe the City (or County, in the case of HP), should have given any subsidies to a shopping complex with a very suspect, at best, pro forma, without, at the very least, tying them to certain performance, i.e. outward-facing orientation of retail storefronts, especially along Dallas St., the use of standard retail window glass that's much more transparent, and more and better landscaping.

Some friends and I were trying to go to HoB on Saturday night (couldn't as someone bought the whole place out though), anyway, we walked from the rail, to HoB, all the way back. Thinking of this thread as I was walking, got me thinking, not only is it completely empty of tenants (to be successful anyway), but there are some fundamentally stupid things they did for design that just make no sense to me.

First one really makes me wonder... there aren't crosswalks on street level, if you don't want to jaywalk (and really who cares anyway) you have to walk down to the intersection. there's no ped crossing on street level? How stupid is that? Then, to top that off, the valet services set up their shop right where someone who would be bold enough to jaywalk would want to walk to cross the street illegally. I'm not saying they need to put in a dedicated stoplight for peds, but a sign, some painted stripes, and lights embedded in the street designated as ped xing, that would go a long way.

Probably the easiest to make a noticeable affect, time the lights so cars will not be stopped under the building. make it illegal for tour buses to idle for more than 5 minutes under the building. it smells like cars everywhere in that place on the ground level, making tour buses either turn off the engines when boarding (assuming everyone isn't already assembled and ready to get on), or having groups board buses in a different location than under the building would go a long way to making it less offensive. they do this all over the place in Europe, and actually, any time a bus is stopped in one location for more than 5 minutes (regardless of how close to people) they have to cut the engines, anyway, that would be a good start.

Nothing can be done at this point, but it really feels cramped on the ground level, maybe it's the planters they have that take up so much room that do this, I don't know, this isn't something that can be changed, so nothing to cry about here.

feeding off of the size of the walkway on the ground floor, it's amazing how little developers care about making patio space as part of their developments, or maybe it's the people who would be using the space that aren't requesting allowances for patio space. even though Houston is a sweatbox in the summer, it's amazing how much people use patios at the places that have them, yet no one seems to do anything really. How awesome would it be to have a space that was 20 feet wider on each side, and that space was used by outdoor patio seating. of course, this would necessitate it not smelling like cars.

[Nick_G]

The Houston Pavilions is a monumental disappointment, in my opinion. The architecture is weak, the orientation backwards, and the public subsidies mostly wasted. I have to admit, though, I was excited and hopeful before it was built that it would make a sizable and positive impact downtown.

Even though it was the mid- to late-2000's and investing in bad real estate finance was en vogue, I don't believe the City (or County, in the case of HP), should have given any subsidies to a shopping complex with a very suspect, at best, pro forma, without, at the very least, tying them to certain performance, i.e. outward-facing orientation of retail storefronts, especially along Dallas St., the use of standard retail window glass that's much more transparent, and more and better landscaping.

My point on the PPP/public subsidy issue is twofold. 1. Houston needs more public sector involvement to adequately transition to being a denser 21st Century city. But, 2., our current planning department and other governmental agencies that have been in charge of making decisions on the use and conditions of the public's money in regard to development projects have been pretty impudent.

RedScare, you're probably right that we likely won't be seeing many new public-backed projects in the near future.

Inevitably, though, Houston will need PPPs and public subsidies, as any major city has and does, for many of the large-scale projects it wants to build so that Houston can "transform into one of the next great global cities of the future." I would prefer a department of qualified planners informing those decisions rather than what we've had, which has given us El Mercado, HP, and all the soon-to-be built communities along the Grand Parkway.

No government agency can be perfect, and there will always be mistakes, but a better, beefed-up planning office with actual powers and cojones and the legislative ability to help create and plan strategic city-benefiting projects is far better than an anemic department, like the one we have now, that has been given close to no official authority over how the city takes shape.

It's an interesting and challenging time in the city's development. Houston is evolving from a place with almost endless land and a laissez-faire attitude towards development and policy to a city where density is starting to demand a different way of thinking, planning, and building. I think it's time to start acting like a big city where transparency is required for the public sector's involvement in development. I applaud Mayor Parker's efforts with Metro. I believe a similar standard should be set for the planning dept.

As for lighting, I think it's pretty straightforward. Map an area where certain signage and lighting would be allowed (the zone in downtown and Midtown where parking isn't required makes sense) and let the landlords do the rest. If a building owner wants to put an electronic billboard that reaches above 40' off the ground, let them. The market will dictate to them what works. And, I still think neon is cool, no matter how unpopular it is on this board. The no-neon ordinance evolved out of fear of sex businesses having neon legs flapping all around, etc. If you don't want pink neon legs, just restrict sex businesses from using neon, or something like that..

To your comment, TheNiche, about suburban developing receiving no help from the city government. The City is indeed involved with each and every greenfield suburban development, mainly through new and costly infrastructure, which is a heck of a lot more than is given to most infill developers.

I have been gone for a few days or I would have brought this up sooner, but again you have be able to put what are pretty close to my exact thoughts out in a clear and concise manner. This is a great post.

As for the neon, I just don't like it, but it would not stop me from going someplace. If it could potentially get more people in the door (or better yet out front on a patio), why not.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G

[Nick_G]

Some friends and I were trying to go to HoB on Saturday night (couldn't as someone bought the whole place out though), anyway, we walked from the rail, to HoB, all the way back. Thinking of this thread as I was walking, got me thinking, not only is it completely empty of tenants (to be successful anyway), but there are some fundamentally stupid things they did for design that just make no sense to me.

First one really makes me wonder... there aren't crosswalks on street level, if you don't want to jaywalk (and really who cares anyway) you have to walk down to the intersection. there's no ped crossing on street level? How stupid is that? Then, to top that off, the valet services set up their shop right where someone who would be bold enough to jaywalk would want to walk to cross the street illegally. I'm not saying they need to put in a dedicated stoplight for peds, but a sign, some painted stripes, and lights embedded in the street designated as ped xing, that would go a long way.

Probably the easiest to make a noticeable affect, time the lights so cars will not be stopped under the building. make it illegal for tour buses to idle for more than 5 minutes under the building. it smells like cars everywhere in that place on the ground level, making tour buses either turn off the engines when boarding (assuming everyone isn't already assembled and ready to get on), or having groups board buses in a different location than under the building would go a long way to making it less offensive. they do this all over the place in Europe, and actually, any time a bus is stopped in one location for more than 5 minutes (regardless of how close to people) they have to cut the engines, anyway, that would be a good start.

Nothing can be done at this point, but it really feels cramped on the ground level, maybe it's the planters they have that take up so much room that do this, I don't know, this isn't something that can be changed, so nothing to cry about here.

feeding off of the size of the walkway on the ground floor, it's amazing how little developers care about making patio space as part of their developments, or maybe it's the people who would be using the space that aren't requesting allowances for patio space. even though Houston is a sweatbox in the summer, it's amazing how much people use patios at the places that have them, yet no one seems to do anything really. How awesome would it be to have a space that was 20 feet wider on each side, and that space was used by outdoor patio seating. of course, this would necessitate it not smelling like cars.

The whole of Harris county is going to smell of cars and industry if we let. Go check out the "Harris County among Worst Polluters" thread started by Subdude in Houston and the environment. Yes that is what the market seems to want but maybe that's because they just aren't thinking about it or maybe because most of the market is only presented with options that are cars first pedestrians second as samagon was noting even in downtown. In my view it is the city's responsibility to make pedestrian travel safe and enjoyable and I really feel we could be doing a better job of it.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G

[RedScare]

The whole of Harris county is going to smell of cars and industry if we let. Go check out the "Harris County among Worst Polluters" thread started by Subdude in Houston and the environment. Yes that is what the market seems to want but maybe that's because they just don't know any better, or have never seen anything else, or maybe because most of the market is only presented with options that are cars first pedestrians second as samagon was noting even in downtown. In my view it is the city's responsibility to make pedestrian travel safe and enjoyable and I really feel we could be doing a better job of it.

I suspect that you are very young, or perhaps simply new to Houston. 30 years ago, during Houston's boomtown years, our air was thick with auto exhaust and refinery fumes, our bayous were so filthy that fish could not live in them, and our highways were strewn with litter and construction debris. All of this with less than one half of today's metro population. Despite unsupported claims to the contrary, increasing auto and plant emissions standards, and a much better awareness of pollution and trash have made Houston cleaner, both chemically and aesthetically, over the last 30 years. More is yet to be done, but pithy claims that Houstonians "just don't know any better" bely your own profound ignorance of the improvements made over the years. I know that it is easy to take potshots at Houston and its citizens. It makes certain people feel enlightened. But, when the potshots are erroneous, it only makes those persons look ignorant.

[Nick_G]

I suspect that you are very young, or perhaps simply new to Houston. 30 years ago, during Houston's boomtown years, our air was thick with auto exhaust and refinery fumes, our bayous were so filthy that fish could not live in them, and our highways were strewn with litter and construction debris. All of this with less than one half of today's metro population. Despite unsupported claims to the contrary, increasing auto and plant emissions standards, and a much better awareness of pollution and trash have made Houston cleaner, both chemically and aesthetically, over the last 30 years. More is yet to be done, but pithy claims that Houstonians "just don't know any better" bely your own profound ignorance of the improvements made over the years. I know that it is easy to take potshots at Houston and its citizens. It makes certain people feel enlightened. But, when the potshots are erroneous, it only makes those persons look ignorant.

Wasn't meant to be a potshot, I edited it to just aren't thinking about it, I am not yet a politician but maybe could be one day in the distant future from the lessons learned from this site. I am not sure if I would say I am very young (people can disagree) but no I would not remember 30 years ago. The main point of that was agreeing with samagon's observation that it was difficult to walk even in an area of downtown, something I believe is true for most of the city and I would like to emphasize the need for improvements. I almost made a comment about how I can see first hand how uptown (the area that i am most familiar with as I do live there) is making huge improvements but I figured I might upset people using that reference.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G

[TheNiche]

I want to bring back the ability to dislike posts.

[RedScare]

The improvements to downtown as compared to the Galleria put it to shame. Even pertaining to pedestrian activity, nearly 200,000 people walk in downtown daily. In Uptown, they walk from the parking lot or garage to the store or restaurant. Not even close.

[Nick_G]

The improvements to downtown as compared to the Galleria put it to shame. Even pertaining to pedestrian activity, nearly 200,000 people walk in downtown daily. In Uptown, they walk from the parking lot or garage to the store or restaurant. Not even close.

Right but it is not the status quo I am looking to talk about it is the continual improvement of areas and where we spend money in the future.

Again, not looking to compare uptown and downtown, just looking to make a positive point of how I can see improvements being made outside my window.

[Nick_G]

I want to bring back the ability to dislike posts.

For the amount of condescending content on this site I am surprised I am getting the amount of flack I am.

Is it better to participate in non-environmentally friendly behavior and not know about or is it better to know about it and not care?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G

[RedScare]

For the amount of condescending content on this site I am surprised I am getting the amount of flack I am.

Is it better to participate in non-environmentally friendly behavior and not know about or is it better to know about it and not care?

Again, no comparison. Not only does your lack of historical reference impede your ability to see the unparalled improvement in downtown over its condition from 30 years ago, and even 15 years ago, but apparently your office and residence impede your ability to compare downtown's environmentally friendly character versus Uptown's non-environmental character. 40 percent of downtown workers use public transit to get to work. METRO not only has light rail running through downtown, but numerous bus routes, and nearly every Park&Ride bus comes downtown. Those P&R buses carry 35,000 commuters daily. Plus, virtually all downtown workers walk in downtown. They may use the tunnels, but the important point is that the 60% who drive to work largely leave their vehicles in the garage all day.

Almost none of these activities occur in Uptown. Uptown may be newer and prettier, but environmentally, Uptown is a catastrophe.

[Nick_G]

Again, no comparison. Not only does your lack of historical reference impede your ability to see the unparalled improvement in downtown over its condition from 30 years ago, and even 15 years ago, but apparently your office and residence impede your ability to compare downtown's environmentally friendly character versus Uptown's non-environmental character. 40 percent of downtown workers use public transit to get to work. METRO not only has light rail running through downtown, but numerous bus routes, and nearly every Park&Ride bus comes downtown. Those P&R buses carry 35,000 commuters daily. Plus, virtually all downtown workers walk in downtown. They may use the tunnels, but the important point is that the 60% who drive to work largely leave their vehicles in the garage all day.

Almost none of these activities occur in Uptown. Uptown may be newer and prettier, but environmentally, Uptown is a catastrophe.

Redscare, I have made enough posts about downtown, the trains and whom I would like them to serve, funding for them and pedestrian improvements and where I would like tax dollars to be spent at this point that I hope my stances on them are already clear. I really feel as though you comb through my comments looking for ways to attack me if it makes sense with everything I have ever said or not.

Also please read my comment above again as I can tell you are not getting at my point.

"or maybe because most of the market is only presented with options that are cars first pedestrians second as samagon was noting even in downtown. In my view it is the city's responsibility to make pedestrian travel safe and enjoyable and I really feel we could be doing a better job of it."

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G

[RedScare]

You throw in some comments that attempt to make your posts thoughtful, but the reality is that you are throwing out a wish list without regard to what has already been done, what is currently being done, or what is feasible in the future. I try to ignore your posts, as the "I wish Houston would do this" threads are so tired and unimaginative. There are a dozen or more of those posters here, and because they trend toward the assumption that Houston sucks, and its leaders suck, and other cities are so much better, these posts are trumpeted as some sort of enlightened and thoughtful remarks. But, they are not. They are shallow.

I understand that you find my responses are an attack. Of course you would, since I am assailing the shallowness of your content. But, any suggestion that Uptown is pedestrian friendly as compared to downtown simply reeks of shallowness. Pedestrian friendliness does not address the prettiness of the landscape. It addresses the the ability to walk. Uptown's heavily trafficked suburban grid is no match for downtown's 250 foot square blocks. The proof is in the pudding. Tens of thousands of people (including me) walk downtown's sidewalks daily. Uptown? Probably tens of dozens. And to bemoan Houston's car-centric layout is to be blindly ignorant of the entire post-WWII history of the United States! Please! Is the only thought appreciated on HAIF that thought that is completely shallow and oblivious to the history of the city? Can even one wishful post acknowledge the financing mechanisms needed to build your bucolic world? Can anyone admit that the political climate makes wholesale redevelopment of a downtown impossible, regardless whether it is even the right thing to do? Can any of these posts ever acknowledge all of the projects in the works or underway that attempt to do exactly those things that you wish for? Can anyone admit that few people anywhere wish to live in downtown, even if these things were done?

This is my last response to you, as every other time I have tried to introduce honesty into a subject, I get called out on it. But, understand that my posts were not "attacks". They were corrections of misstatements made by you. I will now leave you to describe your Shangrila without the burden of reality.

[Nick_G]

You throw in some comments that attempt to make your posts thoughtful, but the reality is that you are throwing out a wish list without regard to what has already been done, what is currently being done, or what is feasible in the future. I try to ignore your posts, as the "I wish Houston would do this" threads are so tired and unimaginative. There are a dozen or more of those posters here, and because they trend toward the assumption that Houston sucks, and its leaders suck, and other cities are so much better, these posts are trumpeted as some sort of enlightened and thoughtful remarks. But, they are not. They are shallow.

I am sorry you feel my posts are shallow but as far as Houston sucking I would like to point out to you that in my encouraging tourism thread where I said I love the city, because I do, this is my home. I also made that thread and the ones about the overpasses all of which you dismissed as useless because I do not want to sit just making a wish list I would like to see if we can get anything in place that would help. Like I said before maybe we can maybe we can't but it can't hurt to try.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G

[Nick_G]

This is my last response to you, as every other time I have tried to introduce honesty into a subject, I get called out on it. But, understand that my posts were not "attacks". They were corrections of misstatements made by you. I will now leave you to describe your Shangrila without the burden of reality.

The reason I call you out is typically your wording and tone and especially your need to take things I have said out of content or put words in my mouth, whenever you put in useful pieces of information I have never responded as though I was attacked even if you disagreed with me.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G

[rsb320]

I hear that Lucky Strike is lots of fun.

[crunchtastic]

Lol, 'I am not yet a politician'. I just knew if I hung with this thread long enough, I'd learn something relevant!

[Nick_G]

Lol, 'I am not yet a politician'. I just knew if I hung with this thread long enough, I'd learn something relevant!

haha yea yea, but you have to be to post on the thread so it's nearly relevant?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Nick_G