Is Houston's Status As One Of The Tallest Cities Fading?

[mfastx]

IMO, the reason why downtown seems "deserted" with so many abandoned building/parking lots is BECAUSE we built so many tall towers in the 70s/80s. We really only needed mid rise buildings, but everyone wanted to be in the supertalls (Chase, Wells Fargo Plaza, etc.) so they moved out of the older buildings, leaving them deserted. most of them were torn down for parking lots.

If Houston would have built correctly, like MOST other cities, downtown would have no parking lots, but it would be chock full of midrise buildings, and maybe a couple of taller ones.

[TheNiche]

If Houston would have built correctly, like MOST other cities, downtown would have no parking lots, but it would be chock full of midrise buildings, and maybe a couple of taller ones.

Like which other cities? They must not be in Texas.

[AtticaFlinch]

IMO, the reason why downtown seems "deserted" with so many abandoned building/parking lots is BECAUSE we built so many tall towers in the 70s/80s. We really only needed mid rise buildings, but everyone wanted to be in the supertalls (Chase, Wells Fargo Plaza, etc.) so they moved out of the older buildings, leaving them deserted. most of them were torn down for parking lots.

If Houston would have built correctly, like MOST other cities, downtown would have no parking lots, but it would be chock full of midrise buildings, and maybe a couple of taller ones.

So it would look like the Galleria area? It's full of midrises, has only one supertall and has no parking lots at all.

[citykid09]

Like which other cities? They must not be in Texas.

Sure they are not in Texas. Pretty much all of Texas went about developing livable inner cities the wrong way meaning they designed them for cars and not humans. Luckily cities like Dallas and Austin have caught on to the success of cities outside of Texas and began to make their inner cities more dense. Houston finally tried to catch on in the past few years, but by that time the financial crisis came.

[AtticaFlinch]

Sure they are not in Texas. Pretty much all of Texas went about developing livable inner cities the wrong way meaning they designed them for cars and not humans. Luckily cities like Dallas and Austin have caught on to the success of cities outside of Texas and began to make their inner cities more dense. Houston finally tried to catch on in the past few years, but by that time the financial crisis came.

How familiar are you with Dallas and Austin?

[kylejack]

Sure they are not in Texas. Pretty much all of Texas went about developing livable inner cities the wrong way meaning they designed them for cars and not humans. Luckily cities like Dallas and Austin have caught on to the success of cities outside of Texas and began to make their inner cities more dense. Houston finally tried to catch on in the past few years, but by that time the financial crisis came.

But you don't want a bunch of mid-rises, you want more massive towers if I understand correctly.

[livincinco]

Sure they are not in Texas. Pretty much all of Texas went about developing livable inner cities the wrong way meaning they designed them for cars and not humans. Luckily cities like Dallas and Austin have caught on to the success of cities outside of Texas and began to make their inner cities more dense. Houston finally tried to catch on in the past few years, but by that time the financial crisis came.

I'm curious why you're talking about the success of cities outside of Texas. I think that most people find that Texas is weathering this recession significantly better than most of the rest of the country. I'd like to hear the names of some of the cities that you think are so much more successful in their development.

[TheNiche]

Sure they are not in Texas. Pretty much all of Texas went about developing livable inner cities the wrong way meaning they designed them for cars and not humans. Luckily cities like Dallas and Austin have caught on to the success of cities outside of Texas and began to make their inner cities more dense. Houston finally tried to catch on in the past few years, but by that time the financial crisis came.

I know what you're trying to articulate, but I'd point out that CBDs such as in Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco were built to accommodate 19th-century technology. They're anachronistic, as evidenced by those cities' very own sprawl. But not for the era in which they came of age, they'd look a lot more like Houston.

I would submit to you and to the OP that urban planning should not condone an approach that places subjective aesthetics as a pinnacle of achievement, but that rather works towards regional solutions intended to enhance the productivity of labor.

Edited March 8, 2010 by TheNiche

[citykid09]

But you don't want a bunch of mid-rises, you want more massive towers if I understand correctly.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I him know that I see where he is coming from.

I'm curious why you're talking about the success of cities outside of Texas. I think that most people find that Texas is weathering this recession significantly better than most of the rest of the country. I'd like to hear the names of some of the cities that you think are so much more successful in their development.

I say its doing well in the recession because of the way much of the state develops, making for cheap land and a host of other factors that make the state favorable for businesses. But does the layout of those these Texas cities make for a great quality of life? I would say a major reason for lack in quality of life here is the absents of rapid transit in our cities.

A few cities that are much more successful in their development: San Fransisco, Los Angeles, San Jose (pretty much all of California), Boston, New York Philly, Atlanta......I could go on.

I know what you're trying to articulate, but I'd point out that CBDs such as in Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco were built to accommodate 19th-century technology. They're anachronistic, as evidenced by those cities' very own sprawl. But not for the era in which they came of age, they'd look a lot more like Houston.

I would submit to you and to the OP that urban planning should not condone an approach that places subjective aesthetics as a pinnacle of achievement, but that rather works towards regional solutions intended to enhance the productivity of labor.

Can you give some examples of your last sentence?

Edited March 8, 2010 by citykid09

[TheNiche]

I say its doing well in the recession because of the way much of the state develops, making for cheap land and a host of other factors that make the state favorable for businesses.

I say it's because we don't have as much exposure to high finance or the manufacturing of consumer goods.

Can you give some examples of your last sentence?

Sure. Check out the Downtown Houston 2025 visioning project. It's the pinnacle of fluff.

For a more concrete example, consider all the funds that were used on the Cotswold Project in north Downtown, how few funds are allocated for its maintenance, how little an impact it has had on new development, and what else might have been done with those funds to enhance traffic flow, transit availability, or to enhance pedestrian mobility.

Edited March 8, 2010 by TheNiche

[AtticaFlinch]

I would say a major reason for lack in quality of life here is the absents of rapid transit in our cities.

Cars are pretty rapid, more rapid than trains and buses anyhow. Cars are snails compared to the SR-71 Blackbird though. At 2000 mph, the SR-71 Blackbird is the most rapid (rapidest?) transit.

Oh, and my quality of life is pretty good... even without an SR-71 Blackbird. (Though my life would be infinitely more full of quality with one.)

[skwatra]

Cahokia (a personal favorite - outside St Louis):

i lived in st louis for 4 years, and i never heard of this. i guess i did live in a bubble though...

[AtticaFlinch]

i lived in st louis for 4 years, and i never heard of this. i guess i did live in a bubble though...

I'm not surprised. We Americans have a long-standing tradition of ignoring the accomplishments of the pre-European natives on this continent. It's easier to relocate and/or slaughter people if they can be portrayed as uncivilized and barely more than animals. Plus, it's on the Illinois side of the river in a dirty little burgh called East St Louis. Most conversations about East St Louis involve crime stats, not pyramids.

[skwatra]

I'm not surprised. We Americans have a long-standing tradition of ignoring the accomplishments of the pre-European natives on this continent. It's easier to relocate and/or slaughter people if they can be portrayed as uncivilized and barely more than animals. Plus, it's on the Illinois side of the river in a dirty little burgh called East St Louis. Most conversations about East St Louis involve crime stats, not pyramids.

well i did make it to east stl a few times, though it was at 3am for 21st birthdays so not exactly the same kinda of 'site seeing'

i was car-less most of my years there, but i did know a lot of locals and when we did manage to get out for the weekend we always headed to the Ozarks, Johnson Shutins, or places like that out west/south. the only time i ever went to IL was to go to Chicago.

is it worth visiting? i'm sure i'll be out there again, still have some friends left there.

maybe i can get a ride on your SR-71 when you get one? it does seat two, so keep me in mind as a copilot. STL may be worth visiting if we can get there in 30 minutes.

[AtticaFlinch]

well i did make it to east stl a few times, though it was at 3am for 21st birthdays so not exactly the same kinda of 'site seeing'

i was car-less most of my years there, but i did know a lot of locals and when we did manage to get out for the weekend we always headed to the Ozarks, Johnson Shutins, or places like that out west/south. the only time i ever went to IL was to go to Chicago.

is it worth visiting? i'm sure i'll be out there again, still have some friends left there.

maybe i can get a ride on your SR-71 when you get one? it does seat two, so keep me in mind as a copilot. STL may be worth visiting if we can get there in 30 minutes.

I think it's worth visiting, but I'm also a former archaeologist whose research was focused primarily on Mississippian cultures. So yeah... take my recommendation with that in mind. If anything, visiting the site is free and it's a UNESCO world heritage site. That's got to be worth something. I used to do a lot of work in Mark Twain N.F., so I completely understand why you took trips to the Ozarks instead. That's incredibly beautiful country. Cahokia is a bit of a one-trick pony. Once you've seen the mounds and visited the museum, there's not much else nearby to see. The neighborhood surrounding the site is pretty rotten. It's not far at all from St Louis though. You can easily see the city skyline from atop Monk's Mound (the big pyramid in the photo), so as long as you're in town, you may as well check it out.

Out of curiosity, did you attend Wash U?

[kylejack]

I think it's worth visiting, but I'm also a former archaeologist whose research was focused primarily on Mississippian cultures. So yeah... take my recommendation with that in mind. If anything, visiting the site is free and it's a UNESCO world heritage site. That's got to be worth something. I used to do a lot of work in Mark Twain N.F., so I completely understand why you took trips to the Ozarks instead. That's incredibly beautiful country. Cahokia is a bit of a one-trick pony. Once you've seen the mounds and visited the museum, there's not much else nearby to see. The neighborhood surrounding the site is pretty rotten. It's not far at all from St Louis though. You can easily see the city skyline from atop Monk's Mound (the big pyramid in the photo), so as long as you're in town, you may as well check it out.

Out of curiosity, did you attend Wash U?

Caddoan Mounds is a pretty cool East Texas daytrip. I hit it up after camping in the national forest a while back.

[livincinco]

I say its doing well in the recession because of the way much of the state develops, making for cheap land and a host of other factors that make the state favorable for businesses. But does the layout of those these Texas cities make for a great quality of life? I would say a major reason for lack in quality of life here is the absents of rapid transit in our cities.

A few cities that are much more successful in their development: San Fransisco, Los Angeles, San Jose (pretty much all of California), Boston, New York Philly, Atlanta......I could go on.

Don't you recognize the contradiction in your statement? The same factors that make the state favorable for business are the ones that define the layout of the cities.

Land (and housing) is cheap here because of excessive supply. Lack of governmental regulation helped to keep the state from having the experiencing the same housing bubble as states like California which artificially constrained supply. These also lead to smaller business hubs and urban sprawl, by allowing business to locate where finances dictate instead of them into the urban core...which makes mass transit infeasible.

I'm also not sure how you can group San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Jose together (along with pretty much the rest of California). If your point is mass transit, I would tell you that the only one of those cities that could be considered to have even a moderately effective mass transit system is San Francisco. Mass transit in both San Jose and Los Angeles is a joke.

IMO, you're listing cities that meet your personal criteria of a high quality of life, not a standard of the general population.

[skwatra]

Out of curiosity, did you attend Wash U?

yeah, I went to WashU. dated a girl from stl, and had lots of friends from stl, so I'll have to ask them about it. I usually relied on them for recs on things to do, not sure why it never came up.

[mfastx]

Like which other cities? They must not be in Texas.

A simple look at Google Earth will show that Houston is one of the only major US cities that has massive amounts of parking lots in its downtown area, and open fields just outside of downtown.

[AtticaFlinch]

Caddoan Mounds is a pretty cool East Texas daytrip. I hit it up after camping in the national forest a while back.

Very cool. I've seen literally a hundred or more mound sites, but as crazy as it may sound, especially as close as it is, I have never been to the Caddoan Mounds. I'll have to make it a point to do that some day soon.

[mfastx]

So it would look like the Galleria area? It's full of midrises, has only one supertall and has no parking lots at all.

I don't understand. Are you trying to be sarcastic? The Galleria has TONS of parking lots. Ideally, most of the Uptown towers would be built downtown. Take Chicago, a city of similar size. It has a massive downtown, but it does not have a large Uptown (if any).

[kylejack]

A simple look at Google Earth will show that Houston is one of the only major US cities that has massive amounts of parking lots in its downtown area, and open fields just outside of downtown.

I checked L.A. and saw a bunch of parking lots in downtown.

[AtticaFlinch]

A simple look at Google Earth will show that Houston is one of the only major US cities that has massive amounts of parking lots in its downtown area, and open fields just outside of downtown.

Not true at all. All the cities that developed along with Houston during the age of the automobile are very similar. Older East Coast cities and a couple West Coast cities are about the only cities in the US that aren't similar to Houston.

I don't understand. Are you trying to be sarcastic? The Galleria has TONS of parking lots. Ideally, most of the Uptown towers would be built downtown. Take Chicago, a city of similar size. It has a massive downtown, but it does not have a large Uptown (if any).

I was being very, very sarcastic. The contention that building midrises exclusively would have eliminated surface parking is ridiculous.

[mfastx]

I checked L.A. and saw a bunch of parking lots in downtown.

That's why I said most. Also LA is much more built up than Houston. Just compare other areas just outside of downtown, there are many open spaces especially on the east side of downtown, and that is not the case in LA.

[mfastx]

Not true at all. All the cities that developed along with Houston during the age of the automobile are very similar. Older East Coast cities and a couple West Coast cities are about the only cities in the US that aren't similar to Houston.

I was being very, very sarcastic. The contention that building midrises exclusively would have eliminated surface parking is ridiculous.

Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio dont have nearly as much parking spaces as Houston. Can you give me en example of any other city that has ever looked like this?

Please post a picture of another city with towering skyscrapers right next to massive amounts of surface parking. Yes I know it is better now, but that's because we are building many mid-rise developments, instead of a couple of skyscrapers.

BTW the Galleria is NOT downtown, I am talking about downtown. Of course the Galleria has mid-rises with surface parking, it is a SUBURBAN OFFICE PARK. People might think that the reason we have surface parking is that we are geared for 20th century and not 19th century WRONG. Atlanta, Miami, and Los Angeles have all built their subway/rail systems in the 80s/90s (20th century). Of course most of us are biased towards Houston because we live here BUT talking to MOST people that do not live in Houston would agree with me.

[N Judah]

Lots of speculators, I guess? There's nothing in Houston codes to prevent huge surface parking lots or big towers.

[mfastx]

Lots of speculators, I guess? There's nothing in Houston codes to prevent huge surface parking lots or big towers.

Exactly. The lack of zoning is responsible for the travisty that is in the above picture. It's no coincidence that nearly every other major city has zoning.

/thread hijack

This is my last response on this thread, I will let whoever disagrees with me have the last word. Remember this is MY opinion folks, I will agree to disagree.

[N Judah]

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing...and instead of outright zoning I'd be interested in ways of pulling these guys out of their comfort zone and inciting them to build instead of sit...and wait...and wait...

[livincinco]

Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio dont have nearly as much parking spaces as Houston. Can you give me en example of any other city that has ever looked like this?

Please post a picture of another city with towering skyscrapers right next to massive amounts of surface parking. Yes I know it is better now, but that's because we are building many mid-rise developments, instead of a couple of skyscrapers.

BTW the Galleria is NOT downtown, I am talking about downtown. Of course the Galleria has mid-rises with surface parking, it is a SUBURBAN OFFICE PARK. People might think that the reason we have surface parking is that we are geared for 20th century and not 19th century WRONG. Atlanta, Miami, and Los Angeles have all built their subway/rail systems in the 80s/90s (20th century). Of course most of us are biased towards Houston because we live here BUT talking to MOST people that do not live in Houston would agree with me.

Sure - look at any of the other Southwest cities that have had rapid growth in the age of the automobile. Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix are all examples. As to Los Angeles' subway/rail system, their system is not appreciably different than what Houston's will be in a couple of years. Don't forget that downtown L.A. was a ghost town up until when L.A. Live and the Staples Center opened a couple of years ago.

[Ross]

Exactly. The lack of zoning is responsible for the travisty that is in the above picture. It's no coincidence that nearly every other major city has zoning.

/thread hijack

This is my last response on this thread, I will let whoever disagrees with me have the last word. Remember this is MY opinion folks, I will agree to disagree.

I don't see a travesty, I see a bunch of land where the owners have been free to determine the best use. I like having relatively cheap parking Downtown. At some point, there will be a demand for more office space, and some of the surface lots will disappear under buildings. That may not be in my life time, but I don't really care, as it's not my land, and it's not really my business as to how the owners choose to use their property.