Jump to content

Hotel On La Branch Between Capitol St. And Rusk St.


Houston19514

Recommended Posts

Wow, this brings the total to at least 7 new hotels opening downtown:

 

-Hyatt Place (261 rooms)

-Hampton Inn (168 rooms)

-Homewood Suites (132 rooms)

-Marriott Marquis (~1000 rooms)

-JW Marriott (323 rooms)

-Springhill Suites (Humble Oil Building) (166 rooms)

-Holiday Inn Flagship (Savoy) (~200 rooms?)

 

That's at least 2200 new hotel rooms added in the next 3 years. Plus potentially even more, although some of these are pretty unlikely:

 

-Days Inn building hotel

-La Quinta

-GreenStreet possible hotel component

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope ground floor retail is part of the plan.. you could really create a active zone .. even if its not I am for anything that removes one more parking lot and this will remove two ..if I am looking at my google map correctly

Edited by Moore713
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is going to sound naive - what is with so many people's obsession with GFR - yes I coined the abbreviation. Everytime I see it I laugh - I want everyone who yearns for ground floor retail go to a little convenience store in one of the hotels downtown and buy a $10 tooth brush then holler back at me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is going to sound naive - what is with so many people's obsession with GFR - yes I coined the abbreviation. Everytime I see it I laugh - I want everyone who yearns for ground floor retail go to a little convenience store in one of the hotels downtown and buy a $10 tooth brush then holler back at me.

 

If you fancy yourself a new urbanist, you must clamor for GFR in EVERY building. You must also demand rail everywhere, and condemn freeways and suburbs. It is the mantra. Unfortunately, most new urbanists...or wannabes...cannot actually tell when ground floor retail is useful and when it is not, so they demand it in every building, even when the building is not in a walkable area.

 

The naivete is not yours, but theirs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you fancy yourself a new urbanist, you must clamor for GFR in EVERY building. You must also demand rail everywhere, and condemn freeways and suburbs. It is the mantra. Unfortunately, most new urbanists...or wannabes...cannot actually tell when ground floor retail is useful and when it is not, so they demand it in every building, even when the building is not in a walkable area.

 

The naivete is not yours, but theirs.

 

All new construction should have sidewalks along the public right-of-way, Q.E.D. all new construction should be in a walkable area, especially inside the Loop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you fancy yourself a new urbanist, you must clamor for GFR in EVERY building. You must also demand rail everywhere, and condemn freeways and suburbs. It is the mantra. Unfortunately, most new urbanists...or wannabes...cannot actually tell when ground floor retail is useful and when it is not, so they demand it in every building, even when the building is not in a walkable area.

 

The naivete is not yours, but theirs.

 

It not about being a new urbainist anything it about creating a econoimc zone in a CBD that has been attacked for lacking a unified retail or Entertainment district. So if you are going to find a place to squat a number of hotels all within walking distance of each other you actually create a rare chance to develop a strong commerical district..with DS green actting as your ancor.. since a number of polls show that most people do not like to venture more than a mile from  there their hotel when walking. A strong retail in the area is a plus not a minus when going for tourist dollars

 

 

Second no one said jack about freeways and understand they have their place and purpose(most new urbanist as you call it) only beef with it is that instead of being a balanced transit system it is a sevely lopped sided one where far to much tax payer dollars are paid toward it with far to little return(we have been expanding highways for the last 30 yrs and still traffic is getting worse not better)

 

 

 

Third funny you went after rail notice all the major construction is happening along the rail lines, main st, rusk

Edited by Moore713
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you fancy yourself a new urbanist, you must clamor for GFR in EVERY building. You must also demand rail everywhere, and condemn freeways and suburbs. It is the mantra. Unfortunately, most new urbanists...or wannabes...cannot actually tell when ground floor retail is useful and when it is not, so they demand it in every building, even when the building is not in a walkable area.

 

The naivete is not yours, but theirs.

 

People like this just have no clue.......it's not even worth our time responding to their sarcastic remarks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red is being sarcastic, and I'm sure he's referencing Slik Vik's arguments over in the transportation forums. 

 

Fortunately, many people who favor urban development and better public transportation do not agree with Slick's views. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. Yet another forum turning to be about the people in them rather than about the topic.

Almost hate to open up this sight anymore.

We could all work on our social skills. Don't y'all think?

These hotels are Great news for downtown. Won't be spectacular in design. And...a hotel lobby IS GFR, of a sort. Pumps people in and out, all day, everyday. Perfect for the area. Exciting stuff.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great. Yet another forum turning to be about the people in them rather than about the topic.

Almost hate to open up this sight anymore.

We could all work on our social skills. Don't y'all think?

These hotels are Great news for downtown. Won't be spectacular in design. And...a hotel lobby IS GFR, of a sort. Pumps people in and out, all day, everyday. Perfect for the area. Exciting stuff.

I'm not a big traveler but I did have the opportunity to stay at a very nice hotel in NYC and it didn't even have GFR except for the hotel restaurant/bar that seemed only to be visited by the guests.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is going to sound naive - what is with so many people's obsession with GFR - yes I coined the abbreviation. Everytime I see it I laugh - I want everyone who yearns for ground floor retail go to a little convenience store in one of the hotels downtown and buy a $10 tooth brush then holler back at me.

 

I do not think GFR is appropriate everywhere but it should be advocated for most buildings downtown.  Traditional built cities commercial avenues or main corridors usually meet downtown.  One would not advocate for every high density project in Houston to have "GFR" but it is imperative for commercial corridors and centers of activity in certain neighborhoods so there are no dead zones and transit can serve these routes of mixed activity.  What makes a downtown a downtown is the concentration of businesses on almost every street and not on a few corridors like you may find in a more residential neighborhood.

 

There are tens of thousands of workers that work on Louisiana and Smith Streets downtown but the activity of the street would not tell you that because of the single use office towers on those corridors.  Almost every one of those landmark towers have some type of private plaza on the ground level that makes the whole street have an office park effect.  If you do not work at these places there is no reason to be on those "private" streets.  If that trend is carbon copied all over downtown, we will continue to have the dead zones that intermingle with other dead zones.  Doesn't make for the safest downtown after hours anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again it is not about creating GFR at every building , but these alinments of building do create a rare chance in Houston to develeop a strong retail core even how close they are to each other

 

I'm curious, who would shop in this "retail core"? Less than 6,000 of the Houston metro's 6 million residents live downtown. That is 1/10th of 1%. There are precious few people downtown who would shop in these stores. If there were, retailers would be rushing to open stores there without the government forcing developers to put in ground floor retail. The fact remains, no one is shopping in downtown, therefore, retailers are not opening downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think GFR is appropriate everywhere but it should be advocated for most buildings downtown.  Traditional built cities commercial avenues or main corridors usually meet downtown.  One would not advocate for every high density project in Houston to have "GFR" but it is imperative for commercial corridors and centers of activity in certain neighborhoods so there are no dead zones and transit can serve these routes of mixed activity.  What makes a downtown a downtown is the concentration of businesses on almost every street and not on a few corridors like you may find in a more residential neighborhood.

 

There are tens of thousands of workers that work on Louisiana and Smith Streets downtown but the activity of the street would not tell you that because of the single use office towers on those corridors.  Almost every one of those landmark towers have some type of private plaza on the ground level that makes the whole street have an office park effect.  If you do not work at these places there is no reason to be on those "private" streets.  If that trend is carbon copied all over downtown, we will continue to have the dead zones that intermingle with other dead zones.  Doesn't make for the safest downtown after hours anyway.

 

Is it safe to assume that "traditional built city" is another term for cities that developed before the automobile? If so, and understanding that the automobile is not going anywhere, why should a post WWII city like Houston attempt to force its design into a form that no longer exists? Also, downtown is one of Houston's safest neighborhoods. That seems to conflict with the statement that highrises are unsafe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only real gripe about most new construction in Houston is the lack of flair. I want to see less function and more form. Where is the drive in these architects? Houston's "style" of architecture is for profit and cheap. You guys know what I mean?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it safe to assume that "traditional built city" is another term for cities that developed before the automobile? If so, and understanding that the automobile is not going anywhere, why should a post WWII city like Houston attempt to force its design into a form that no longer exists? Also, downtown is one of Houston's safest neighborhoods. That seems to conflict with the statement that highrises are unsafe.

 

You're right; that is another term for cities developed in a certain era, but those cities also have timeless qualities that are effective in restoring or preserving a city's urban fabric. Is it silly for Houston to adapt such qualities in an agenda to make Downtown Houston more active and more of a self-sufficient neighborhood and not a desert for so many everyday amenities in an urban context?  I'm not saying Downtown Houston is not safe, I am simply saying having more eyes on the street with having mixed activity happening downtown is more safe than being a sole pedestrian walking in a "dead zone" of non-activity.  That's the case for a highrise district or a commercial street lined with single story storefronts.  Whose statement in this thread are you referring to that highrises are unsafe?

Edited by WesternGulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right; that is another term for cities developed in a certain era, but those cities also have timeless qualities that are effective in restoring or preserving a city's urban fabric. Is it silly for Houston to adapt such qualities in an agenda to make Downtown Houston more active and more of a self-sufficient neighborhood and not a desert for so many everyday amenities in an urban context? I'm not saying Downtown Houston is not safe, I am simply saying having more eyes on the street with having mixed activity happening downtown is more safe than being a sole pedestrian walking in a "dead zone" of non-activity. That's the case for a highrise district or a commercial street lined with single story storefronts. Whose statement in this thread are you referring to that highrises are unsafe?

I don't think that's the point that Red is trying to make. I think that his point is that compelling developers to include GFR isn't a good idea. If the developer doesn't think that they can lease that GFR, then the whole equation changes. They may question the economics of the development and not move forward with it, or they may build the GFR and have it sit vacant which is of no value to anyone.

I think that everyone agrees that GFR is nice if the market will support it. The question is whether it is makes sense to require it when the developer doesn't think that there is sufficient demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...