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

[TheNiche]

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 was checking out one of the new sections of the Riverwalk earlier this afternoon, and right across the river from the SA Museum of Art is an open field. And a couple hundred feet to the north of it is a very large parking lot with barbed-wire-topped chain link fence abutting the Riverwalk. But according to you, the $5 all-day surface lot that I parked in shouldn't exist, either. Maybe it was an optical illusion, a phantasm conjured by the spirits of the Menger Hotel's bar.

I'm guessing that you've never been to Dallas or Austin, either.

[mfastx]

I was checking out one of the new sections of the Riverwalk earlier this afternoon, and right across the river from the SA Museum of Art is an open field. And a couple hundred feet to the north of it is a very large parking lot with barbed-wire-topped chain link fence abutting the Riverwalk. But according to you, the $5 all-day surface lot that I parked in shouldn't exist, either. Maybe it was an optical illusion, a phantasm conjured by the spirits of the Menger Hotel's bar.

I'm guessing that you've never been to Dallas or Austin, either.

OK I said I would not reply on this thread again but I have to for this. Please think for a sec: Am I really wrong in saying that Houston has the most surface parking lots in downtown of any major city? Yes I have been to Dallas and Austin, and yes they have parking lots, but NOT AS MUCH as Houston. The reason I brought up parking lots is because since we built skyscrapers, tenants moved out of smaller buildings, and it became profitable to use them as lots. I'm not saying that there should be no parking downtown, just not as much surface parking, but garages with retail would be ideal. (An example of this is the garage for Chase tower)

I'm guessing you haven't been to any major city outside of Texas, either.

[mfastx]

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.

Southwest cities all have surface parking, I was just relating it to the building of skyscrapers in downtown, and saying that if we built dense, not tall, then we would not have all those lots downtown. All of those cities you named all have surface parking, but no city has as much as Houston. Anyone living outside Houston will tell you this, but most of us defend Houston because we live here.. understandable.

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.

Agreed. The word "travesty" comes from personal opinion, I would rather have an urbanized downtown and park cars in garages that look like buildings (see Chase Tower garage).

But maybe that is just an ideal world and a pipe dream.

[kylejack]

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.

It wasn't just parking lots, though. Those were car dealerships and various other types of businesses. Yes, Houston started later than other cities so is doing some catching up.

[TheNiche]

All of those cities you named all have surface parking, but no city has as much as Houston. Anyone living outside Houston will tell you this, but most of us defend Houston because we live here.. understandable.

The friend with whom I was touring SA's Riverwalk actually tried to brag on the ready availability and inexpensiveness of surface parking lots as compared to Houston. So yeah, you need to be more careful with the use of words like "anyone".

Agreed. The word "travesty" comes from personal opinion, I would rather have an urbanized downtown and park cars in garages that look like buildings (see Chase Tower garage).

You must think my friend to be a walking talking travesty, then, on account of that his opinion on the subject differs from yours.

[RedScare]

The reason I brought up parking lots is because since we built skyscrapers, tenants moved out of smaller buildings, and it became profitable to use them as lots.

You do realize that the only buildings on those parking lots were 1 and 2 story retail and shop type buildings, don't you? Of course you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be claiming that people moved out of those buildings and into highrise towers. There are plenty of old photos around that show what was there. It was residential and small commercial and industrial. Nothing that a downtown business would move into.

[mfastx]

The friend with whom I was touring SA's Riverwalk actually tried to brag on the ready availability and inexpensiveness of surface parking lots as compared to Houston. So yeah, you need to be more careful with the use of words like "anyone".

You must think my friend to be a walking talking travesty, then, on account of that his opinion on the subject differs from yours.

Has your friend been to Houston? Because I have been to San Antonio and there are many more parking lots in Houston than in San Antonio. I am not talking about how "inexpensive" they are, I am talking pure quantity. Let me change my statement to "most people" instead of "anyone."

Your last sentence is rather confusing. When the photo I previously posted was taken, in my opinion the condition of downtown Houston, compared to other cities, was a travesty. Today, I would not use that strong of a word, but there is still too many lots IMO. No, I do not think your friend is a "travesty." He has the right to have a different opinion on something than me.

BTW, you did not answer my question, you are dodging it: Do you or don't you think that Houston has an unusually large amount of parking lots in its downtown for such a large city? By sheer quantity (no I am not talking about "inexpensiveness") I think we have more than other large cities, and this is because: a) we have no other transit options besides the automobile, and the reasons I listed in my original post on this thread. What was so wrong with my statement?

[mfastx]

You do realize that the only buildings on those parking lots were 1 and 2 story retail and shop type buildings, don't you? Of course you don't. Otherwise, you wouldn't be claiming that people moved out of those buildings and into highrise towers. There are plenty of old photos around that show what was there. It was residential and small commercial and industrial. Nothing that a downtown business would move into.

Maybe in some cases, but I have seen many photos of 5-6 story buildings being torn down to create surface parking. Sometimes, all but one of the buildings would be torn down, and there would be one awkward tower standing (1082 Texas Street. [i am not sure if that is the correct address, but you'll see it on google maps]).

[RedScare]

I have to say, one building removed for a parking lot is not persuasive. And, how do you know why they tore it down? We just watched a midrise knocked down because it was a safety hazard.

The fact remains though, that you posted a nearly 40 year old photo of the east side of downtown, and there were no midrises in that area prior to the parking lots. Your argument is without merit.

[AtticaFlinch]

Remember this is MY opinion folks, I will agree to disagree.

The opinion defense: the last refuge of the intellectually dishonest.

BTW, opinions can't be stated as absolutes. Here's an example of an opinion and not an opinion, can you guess which is which?

1. Surface parking lots suck.

2. Houston's downtown has more surface parking lots than any other city in the world.

If you guessed one is an opinion and two is not an opinion, then congrats, you grasp on some level how your statement that your take is an opinion is flat-out false. But, your take on this isn't a fact either. It fits an a less well-defined area that many internet debaters don't even realize exists. Most internet debaters automatically assume anything not able to be proven out conclusively is automatically an opinion. Often, and especially in this case, the statement falls under the category heading "hyperbolized and mischaracterized lie".

I hope this clears up a few things for you.

[skwatra]

if we really want facts, why doesn't someone use google maps/earth to count the number of surface lots downtown compared to the total number of lots? and compare cities to houston that are appropriate for this argument, like dallas, LA, and atlanta. and its the ratio that's important, in the common representation of a cities 'downtown'.

we do have several buildings that haven't made google maps, but most of the satellite imagery is from around the same timeframe, so that should apply to other cities as well and be close enough to get a good estimate.

i wouldn't even compare to cities like austin or SA personally.

i don't have time today, nor care enough to do this. yes, we have plenty of surface lots, but so do a lot of other auto driven cities. we're working on it...

[livincinco]

Southwest cities all have surface parking, I was just relating it to the building of skyscrapers in downtown, and saying that if we built dense, not tall, then we would not have all those lots downtown. All of those cities you named all have surface parking, but no city has as much as Houston. Anyone living outside Houston will tell you this, but most of us defend Houston because we live here.. understandable.

I understand your point, but that is a generalization and it depends entirely on the area that you are discussing. If you look at the area that the skyscrapers were built, it is a dense, compact section of downtown. The parking lots in question wereon the perimeter of that area and could hardly be considered "downtown" at the time referenced.

What I find interesting about this is that you're actually arguing against density, by arguing that Houston would have been better off by developing mid rises in a wider area of downtown.

Just remember that many of the open lots that you show in your picture have been developed into the convention center, Toyota Center, Discovery Green, et al. Major construction projects of that kind wouldn't have been possible if that area had been covered by mid rises.

[Houston19514]

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.

Glad to see you're still around CityKid. I presume you'll be favoring us soon with your list of the "plenty" of buildings "we all know" are going up in NYC and Chicago that are taller than our Chase Tower? Or have you just decided to drop that and move on to other specious comments and arguments?

[livincinco]

if we really want facts, why doesn't someone use google maps/earth to count the number of surface lots downtown compared to the total number of lots? and compare cities to houston that are appropriate for this argument, like dallas, LA, and atlanta. and its the ratio that's important, in the common representation of a cities 'downtown'.

we do have several buildings that haven't made google maps, but most of the satellite imagery is from around the same timeframe, so that should apply to other cities as well and be close enough to get a good estimate.

i wouldn't even compare to cities like austin or SA personally.

i don't have time today, nor care enough to do this. yes, we have plenty of surface lots, but so do a lot of other auto driven cities. we're working on it...

If anyone does have time and/or cares enough to do this...seek professional help immediately...

[totheskies]

Has your friend been to Houston? Because I have been to San Antonio and there are many more parking lots in Houston than in San Antonio. I am not talking about how "inexpensive" they are, I am talking pure quantity. Let me change my statement to "most people" instead of "anyone."

Your last sentence is rather confusing. When the photo I previously posted was taken, in my opinion the condition of downtown Houston, compared to other cities, was a travesty. Today, I would not use that strong of a word, but there is still too many lots IMO. No, I do not think your friend is a "travesty." He has the right to have a different opinion on something than me.

BTW, you did not answer my question, you are dodging it: Do you or don't you think that Houston has an unusually large amount of parking lots in its downtown for such a large city? By sheer quantity (no I am not talking about "inexpensiveness") I think we have more than other large cities, and this is because: a) we have no other transit options besides the automobile, and the reasons I listed in my original post on this thread. What was so wrong with my statement?

Despite having a far larger tourist population, downtown San Antonio is significantly smaller than downtown Houston... both in size and scope. It's far more fun and more interesting than Houston, but that doesn't change the fact that it's smaller.

And like has been mentioned already... Houston is making up for the craziness of 70s and 80s building patterns. So if you don't like the pace of our building trends, please go and start buying up land and plan and build your own skyscrapers. If you're mad about what was in the past, invent a functional and dependable time machine so you can go back to the 60s, buy up some land and either save existing buildings or build your own skyscrapers. Otherwise, there's just very little use to continuing arguing about what has been done.

I for one am proud to live in Houston during a time where people want more than a plethora of surface parking in downtown. I moved here in 2005, and since that time I am priviledged to witness the downtown going through a transformation and becoming a place where people actually go to... not just blow through. We've still got a hella long way to go on that, but changes like Discovery Green, the renovated Market Square Park and (to some extent) Houston Pavilions are most definitely needed and appreciated. I wouldn't have wanted to live near downtown Houston in the 70s or 80s... but thankfully I didn't have to. But I like the downtown Houston of today, and it's getting better by the minute.

[skwatra]

If anyone does have time and/or cares enough to do this...seek professional help immediately...

you don't know some of the people on here!

[N Judah]

Wrong, the statement "the situation depicted in this picture is a travesty" is an opinion.

[TheNiche]

Has your friend been to Houston? Because I have been to San Antonio and there are many more parking lots in Houston than in San Antonio. I am not talking about how "inexpensive" they are, I am talking pure quantity. Let me change my statement to "most people" instead of "anyone."

Your last sentence is rather confusing. When the photo I previously posted was taken, in my opinion the condition of downtown Houston, compared to other cities, was a travesty. Today, I would not use that strong of a word, but there is still too many lots IMO. No, I do not think your friend is a "travesty." He has the right to have a different opinion on something than me.

BTW, you did not answer my question, you are dodging it: Do you or don't you think that Houston has an unusually large amount of parking lots in its downtown for such a large city? By sheer quantity (no I am not talking about "inexpensiveness") I think we have more than other large cities, and this is because: a) we have no other transit options besides the automobile, and the reasons I listed in my original post on this thread. What was so wrong with my statement?

Probably higher than average. But certainly, surface lots and open fields do exist in significant number in many other CBDs...not always in such a way as that they detract from the experience. They are viewed as a convenient amenity by some people.

Along those same lines, I also dispute your rationale as to how Houston came to have its surface lots. Older coastal CBDs were more economically vibrant during the 19th century and were able to be built in such a way as to cater to pedestrian, horse-drawn carriages, and early forms of transit. We never really had the wealth or population growth (even of Galveston, at the time) to make that an option, early on. And seeing as how adequate sanitation and the communicability of disease was still a huge problem in the 19th century, such high density wasn't exactly viewed as an amenity so much as a necessary burden...so new residents weren't exactly clamoring for it, because we were small enough that it wasn't geographically necessary or economically feasible. With the advent of the automobile, the combustion engine, our oil wealth, and vastly-increased population growth during the 20th century, it was not necessary or desirable for people to live near downtown, however the centrality of downtown still made it suitable for offices and light industry, so the retail base suffered at just the same moment as that parking became a valuable commodity. All those low-rise commercial buildings became victims of their own inherent opportunity cost. It had nothing to do with the unavailability of transit...which served downtown Houston throughout the 20th century, btw.

Had there been denser development remaining from 19th-century boomtimes that never happened here on the scale that they did in places like Philadelphia, then the opportunity cost for knocking down four-story and higher structures would've translated to many more of them being preserved. ...of course, they'd have been viewed as visual blight (perhaps even "travesties" of an urban environment) for several generations before becoming appreciated again. There'd have been little stopping the Urban Renewal movement from getting its teeth into our hypothetically historical CBD the way that they did in so many other older cities. Cest la vie. [shrug]

[LTAWACS]

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.)

Yawn...

The Space Shuttles are much faster than your slow blackbird.

[kylejack]

Somewhere in an alternate dimension on a New York Architecture Information Forum there is a guy wailing about how he can't ever find anywhere to park.

[AtticaFlinch]

Wrong, the statement "the situation depicted in this picture is a travesty" is an opinion.

That is, sure. It's overwrought, maudlin and more than a bit contrived, but yeah, that's an opinion. But that's not what the opinion defense referenced. So... I guess good for you in understanding what is and what isn't an opinion, and considering the breadth of your opinion-discerning skills, I suppose my comment wasn't directed towards you.

[RedScare]

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.

Here is an aerial photo of downtown from 1958. Feel free to point out all of the midrise buildings destroyed to produce the parking lots in your 1974 photo.

[kylejack]

Here is an aerial photo of downtown from 1958. Feel free to point out all of the midrise buildings destroyed to produce the parking lots in your 1974 photo.

Single family houses in what is modern day Downtown? Perish the thought!

[mfastx]

I have to say, one building removed for a parking lot is not persuasive. And, how do you know why they tore it down? We just watched a midrise knocked down because it was a safety hazard.

The fact remains though, that you posted a nearly 40 year old photo of the east side of downtown, and there were no midrises in that area prior to the parking lots. Your argument is without merit.

If you had read my post, I said that it is better now, and it is not a "travesty" anymore. THOSE parking lots may have not come from midrises, but others have. I will give you an example. Just in the last couple of months, Swamplot said that a building (that is around 7 or 8 stories) near Minute Maid Park will be torn down because it is abandoned/not in safety code. A parking lot will replace it (if it has not already). There is also another abandoned midrise (~13 stories) that will be turned into a hotel on main street.

Obviously those midrises were abandoned. So this proves my argument that midrises were abandoned due to preference to another building. In the picture you posted, there are midrises on the north end of downtown that were demolished. I never said that in the pic I posted there were midrises, I was just saying that they should have built midrises around all of downtown instead of a few towers with parking lots in half of downtown and towers in the other half.

[mfastx]

The opinion defense: the last refuge of the intellectually dishonest.

BTW, opinions can't be stated as absolutes. Here's an example of an opinion and not an opinion, can you guess which is which?

1. Surface parking lots suck.

2. Houston's downtown has more surface parking lots than any other city in the world.

If you guessed one is an opinion and two is not an opinion, then congrats, you grasp on some level how your statement that your take is an opinion is flat-out false. But, your take on this isn't a fact either. It fits an a less well-defined area that many internet debaters don't even realize exists. Most internet debaters automatically assume anything not able to be proven out conclusively is automatically an opinion. Often, and especially in this case, the statement falls under the category heading "hyperbolized and mischaracterized lie".

I hope this clears up a few things for you.

You are putting words in my mouth, I never said that Houston's downtown has more surface parking lots than any other city in the world, I said that Houston has more surface lots than MOST other cities in the US.

[TheNiche]

You are putting words in my mouth, I never said that Houston's downtown has more surface parking lots than any other city in the world, I said that Houston has more surface lots than MOST other cities in the US.

You asked at one point whether anyone could provide an example of any city that had more surface parking than Houston. Unless you already know of one and are disingenuously keeping that example to yourself so as to inflate the rhetorical effect, it would seem implied that you believe that Houston tops the list.

[kylejack]

If you had read my post, I said that it is better now, and it is not a "travesty" anymore. THOSE parking lots may have not come from midrises, but others have. I will give you an example. Just in the last couple of months, Swamplot said that a building (that is around 7 or 8 stories) near Minute Maid Park will be torn down because it is abandoned/not in safety code. A parking lot will replace it (if it has not already). There is also another abandoned midrise (~13 stories) that will be turned into a hotel on main street.

Obviously those midrises were abandoned.

806 Main was not "abandoned". Tenants were ousted so that the renovation to hotel could begin. Domino's remains as a tenant right now, and possibly the Christian Science Reading Room too. Furthermore, at 92 feet (23 stories, not 13) 806 Main is not a midrise. So no, its not a midrise and no, it wasn't abandoned.

1319 Texas is probably a little too short to be a midrise with only 4 stories (not 7 or 8), but I can't find a height measurement.

So start from scratch.

[skwatra]

Yawn...

The Space Shuttles are much faster than your slow blackbird.

i'd take the SR-71 for speed. yeah, the space shuttle gets to 17500 in space orbit, but it takes 8 minutes to get to that speed. and you would have to do a full orbit before the de-orbit burn, which would take 90 minutes. then another hour to slow down and land after the de-orbit burn.

so unless you're going half way across the world, the SR-71 is faster (and if you include the full launch sequence, it would be faster for that as well).

sorry i know more about aerospace than architecture so i had to chime in.

[Simbha]

If you had read my post, I said that it is better now, and it is not a "travesty" anymore. THOSE parking lots may have not come from midrises, but others have. I will give you an example. Just in the last couple of months, Swamplot said that a building (that is around 7 or 8 stories) near Minute Maid Park will be torn down because it is abandoned/not in safety code. A parking lot will replace it (if it has not already). There is also another abandoned midrise (~13 stories) that will be turned into a hotel on main street.

Obviously those midrises were abandoned. So this proves my argument that midrises were abandoned due to preference to another building. In the picture you posted, there are midrises on the north end of downtown that were demolished. I never said that in the pic I posted there were midrises, I was just saying that they should have built midrises around all of downtown instead of a few towers with parking lots in half of downtown and towers in the other half.

So, in summary:

You believe that developers should have constructed a greater number of midrise structures in downtown so that we would not have surface parking lots. This is your opinion even though, by your own admission, tenants prefer 'other buildings' to midrises.

Well, that would certainly have made for an interesting CBD - a veritable ghost town of dense midrises.

[RedScare]

If you had read my post, I said that it is better now, and it is not a "travesty" anymore. THOSE parking lots may have not come from midrises, but others have. I will give you an example. Just in the last couple of months, Swamplot said that a building (that is around 7 or 8 stories) near Minute Maid Park will be torn down because it is abandoned/not in safety code. A parking lot will replace it (if it has not already). There is also another abandoned midrise (~13 stories) that will be turned into a hotel on main street.

Obviously those midrises were abandoned. So this proves my argument that midrises were abandoned due to preference to another building. In the picture you posted, there are midrises on the north end of downtown that were demolished. I never said that in the pic I posted there were midrises, I was just saying that they should have built midrises around all of downtown instead of a few towers with parking lots in half of downtown and towers in the other half.

Wow. Nowhere in the world are businesses forced into substandard or unsafe buildings just so the cityscape MIGHT look better, yet you criticize "Houston" for not doing so (the quotes are due to the fact that I don't know who should have forced the tenants into those midrises, the government or the building owners). But, there are more problems with your lament. The midrises that were demolished were replaced with bigger buildings which increased downtown's density...usually considered a good thing...and, more importantly, the area that you claim should have had midrises built on them was not downtown at all at the time. It was next to downtown, but not downtown. Downtown in the 1958 photo is the area of dense midrises (and a few highrises) with few parking lots. The area of 1 and 2 story buildings and apartments and single family residences was the East End. In the 1960s, US 59 was built through the area, cutting it in half. The western half was annexed into downtown as it was a natural fit. The eastern half remained commercial and industrial. The area of parking lots that you so loudly whine about was simply the clearing of land for the expansion of downtown. If not for the oil bust of the mid-80s, that area may very well be filled with midrises and highrises today. As it were, the expansion into east downtown was simply delayed by 15 years due to the bust.

I find it interesting that you complain that Houston developers built unneeded highrises, and that Dallas and Atlanta did it right. It is HOUSTON that had a nearly single digit vacancy rate just prior to the recession, and DALLAS that has a vacancy rate in the mid-20 percent range. Atlanta also has a higher vacancy. Miami has dozens of empty highrises. If anything, those cities did it wrong. Houston did it RIGHT.