Multi Downtown Houston

[marc]

I have been reading several posts and following development, and i wonder if a good trend for Houston would be to capitalize on the existing junctions of freeways and tollways and develope several mini-down towns (we would have to start calling them urban centers i suppose).

These urban centers could offer midrise/ highrise corporate and residential towers, capitalize on the already (for the most part) existing shopping malls, and upgrade transportation facilities and such. Houston's lax zoning laws would allow for it, and other alternatives do not seem immediately feasible at this time; meaning DT is too vacant for any more office towers, UT is too expensive for most Houstonians, etc. Why not put the structures where they are needed the most and have Houston become even more unique by offering a vista of several small cities surrounding a large DT urban center. It already sort of does that anyway. Let's just take it a step further.

Any thoughts- especially from those who know Houston details enough to know if this is even feasible.

Thanks,

m.

[UrbaNerd]

And your point is.....:S

[marc]

And your point is.....:S

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the last sentence clarifies my point completely.

m.

[bachanon]

what you are describing marc is an urban village. there are some great resources on this concept you can find by searching the term "urban village". i believe that by connecting these existing centers or "mini downtowns" (downtown, uptown, midtown, med center, greenway plaza, etc.) with consistent and convenient mass transit options each of these "villages" will flourish.

[Houston19514]

Feasible? It has already happened...

downtown

uptown

Greenway Plaza

Westchase

Medical Center

Greenspoint

The Woodlands

They have also been called "Edge Cities"

[brijonmang]

its happened on a small scale...i think marc is talking about starting them more around downtown and surrounding areas then work their way out along freeway intersections... but it is true that we do have these areas already sporadically around town

[UrbaNerd]

Feasible?  It has already happened...

downtown

uptown

Greenway Plaza

Westchase

Medical Center

Greenspoint

The Woodlands

They have also been called "Edge Cities"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly what I meant.

The thing is, we should attempt to link these "edge cities" up as much as possible, rather than seperating them. Midtown would be a great way to link up the TMC and DT, and eventually, hopefully, there will be a link from DT/Greenway/Uptown.

[YakuzaIce]

We pretty much already have this, but if we wanted them connected and each one to be large enough to sustain itself we need the cities help. That would include rail connecting all of these edge cities to each other and downtown. The other thing that would be needed is semi zoning that only allowed urban mid to high rises in these areas to keep continuity.

[marc]

We pretty much already have this, but if we wanted them connected and each one to be large enough to sustain itself we need the cities help.  That would include rail connecting all of these edge cities to each other and downtown.  The other thing that would be needed is semi zoning that only allowed urban mid to high rises in these areas to keep continuity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you to all.

Exactly what i had in mind. Like all here, i want Houston to do well and i believe we have been sharing ideas,opinions and such to let those in charge know how the general population feels about growth, development and all that.

It is just that i get a bit agitated that Houston developers do not seem to look beyond the existing situation to form some strategy to put Houston back onto the national or international map. SO, i suppose my point was to see the feasibility to capitalize on a seemingly already existing situation since, it seems, developers insist on continuing urban sprawl instead of mass transit possibilities, people balking at empty commercial facilities and a city that has people moving to it by the droves, but developers scared to dream big like those in NY, Chicago, San Fran., Miami or LV.

SO, any new developments which fulfill this trend?

m.

[marc]

what you are describing marc is an urban village.  there are some great resources on this concept you can find by searching the term "urban village".  i believe that by connecting these existing centers or "mini downtowns" (downtown, uptown, midtown, med center, greenway plaza, etc.) with consistent and convenient mass transit options each of these "villages" will flourish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i agree.

Light rail is our future for this type of development.

m.

[marc]

Feasible?  It has already happened...

downtown

uptown

Greenway Plaza

Westchase

Medical Center

Greenspoint

The Woodlands

They have also been called "Edge Cities"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes, yes,

i concure,

BUT... why not expand the trend beyond the natural occurance of what happened?

Instead of developers floundering around what would be a good location to place a highrise, midrise or such, just go for the gold........advertise communities around each transportation junction.......offer a 600+ commercial highrise for each one to give it distinction, build a giant shopping complex, offer great midrise residential buildings, parks, hook it up to light rail or other Metro options and make Houston GREAT not just...........trying to get there.

make sense?

m.

[marc]

its happened on a small scale...i think marc is talking about starting them more around downtown and surrounding areas then work their way out along freeway intersections... but it is true that we do have these areas already sporadically around town

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, thank you.

That is what i mean. It already is in place. Why not capitalize on what already exisits. Many posters talk about the future of Houston and what it COULD do. Why not go with what it is already doing............ forming many urban centers in one city. Not unique now, but we could make it something noteworthy about Houston.

Imagine, developers willing to build a skyscraper 500-700 feet as well as residential highrises and shopping complexes around areas where freeways connect with other freeways, Loop 610 and the Sam Houston Tollway.

Am i making sense?

m.

[H-Town Man]

I think there are a couple of problems. For one thing, just having a bunch of office buildings in one location doesn't make a downtown. What is unique about downtown is the street grid that allows a high concentration of businesses and other institutions (like entertainment and cultural institutions) to interact with one another, leading to a sense of "place" that is greater than the sum of its parts.

The problem with replicating something like this in other locations is that the economics behind it usually do not make sense. It is one thing to build a group of office buildings that are convenient to suburban commuters, and then perhaps to build a mall or other shopping center to feed off of the traffic going to those office buildings. It is another thing to invest in the kind of infrastructure - streets, sewers, utilities, public parks, etc. - that makes a real downtown environment possible. When you look at most edge cities, in Houston and around the country, you find that they are very exclusive to a certain income range, very narrow in their range of uses, and very limited in their ability to expand and grow into new things beyond the original developer's vision. This is true even of those "urban villages" that try to simulate a traditional downtown.

The fact is that the things that make for a successful, sustainable urban neighborhood are not the type of things that it is easy to develop from scratch. There is a classic book about this, The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs, that contains a number of insights and principles about how great urban neighborhoods work. One of the things she talks about is having a tight street grid. Tight street grids mean short blocks, which in turn mean greater liveliness for pedestrians, greater safety because activity centers tend to be pushed closer together, greater visibility for businesses (since they can be seen from cross streets), and a uniform landscape that serves many uses equally (i.e. churches, govt. centers, performing arts, offices, residences, parks, retail, etc.) and is adaptable to expansion and change.

But for a developer who is simply trying to make a return on his investment in land, building a major street grid is probably the least viable option. For one thing, it is extremely expensive - you are talking about a large amount of infrastructure for businesses that may or may not be built. For another thing, building a street grid from scratch means having a lot of blocks that won't be used for a very long time - which creates an eyesore. It is much more appealing to allow space for a limited number of buildings and shops, and then surround it with nice, sterile greenery. Last but not least, it simply leaves far too much open. Suburban office workers like controlled environments - they want to park in a big, accessible garage, take the skywalk to their office building, have a nice easy walk to their shopping destinations (all arranged in a nice cluster), and most important of all, be protected from people who aren't like them. An urban street grid does not lend itself to this. It is too democratic - it allows anything to come in, and it forces everybody to cross paths with everybody else. Some newer developments imitate traditional street grids, but these are invariably as limited and inflexible as the shopping malls that they replaced. I'm sure if you compare the real downtown with its suburban imitators, you will see the differences I am talking about.

Another thing she talks about is historical buildings. These are not just important for their charm, they are important because they allow rentable space for businesses that can't afford to build or rent something new. Look at all the restaurants in the north end of downtown - they didn't build new buildings, they inhabited old ones. It is not feasible to build new buildings there just for a restaurant, unless you are a big corporation like Landry's. But when you have a new "urban village," everything has to be built new. That is why the only stores and restaurants you see there are high end, corporate chains - they're the only ones that can afford it. There are no "hole-in-the-wall"s. And to have a lively, diverse urban neighborhood, you need "hole-in-the-wall"s.

As far as I can tell, for these and many more reasons that would take up too much space to list, I think that in the years to come Houston will see many more urban fantasylands going up in the suburbs, as well as bland, sterile office parks, but few new downtowns. We may as well work on adding to the one we've got.

[marc]

I think there are a couple of problems.  For one thing, just having a bunch of office buildings in one location doesn't make a downtown.  What is unique about downtown is the street grid that allows a high concentration of businesses and other institutions (like entertainment and cultural institutions) to interact with one another, leading to a sense of "place" that is greater than the sum of its parts. 

The problem with replicating something like this in other locations is that the economics behind it usually do not make sense.  It is one thing to build a group of office buildings that are convenient to suburban commuters, and then perhaps to build a mall or other shopping center to feed off of the traffic going to those office buildings.  It is another thing to invest in the kind of infrastructure - streets, sewers, utilities, public parks, etc. - that makes a real downtown environment possible.  When you look at most edge cities, in Houston and around the country, you find that they are very exclusive to a certain income range, very narrow in their range of uses, and very limited in their ability to expand and grow into new things beyond the original developer's vision.  This is true even of those "urban villages" that try to simulate a traditional downtown. 

The fact is that the things that make for a successful, sustainable urban neighborhood are not the type of things that it is easy to develop from scratch.  There is a classic book about this, The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs, that contains a number of insights and principles about how great urban neighborhoods work.  One of the things she talks about is having a tight street grid.  Tight street grids mean short blocks, which in turn mean greater liveliness for pedestrians, greater safety because activity centers tend to be pushed closer together, greater visibility for businesses (since they can be seen from cross streets), and a uniform landscape that serves many uses equally (i.e. churches, govt. centers, performing arts, offices, residences, parks, retail, etc.) and is adaptable to expansion and change. 

But for a developer who is simply trying to make a return on his investment in land, building a major street grid is probably the least viable option.  For one thing, it is extremely expensive - you are talking about a large amount of infrastructure for businesses that may or may not be built.  For another thing, building a street grid from scratch means having a lot of blocks that won't be used for a very long time - which creates an eyesore.  It is much more appealing to allow space for a limited number of buildings and shops, and then surround it with nice, sterile greenery.  Last but not least, it simply leaves far too much open.  Suburban office workers like controlled environments - they want to park in a big, accessible garage, take the skywalk to their office building, have a nice easy walk to their shopping destinations (all arranged in a nice cluster), and most important of all, be protected from people who aren't like them.  An urban street grid does not lend itself to this.  It is too democratic - it allows anything to come in, and it forces everybody to cross paths with everybody else.  Some newer developments imitate traditional street grids, but these are invariably as limited and inflexible as the shopping malls that they replaced.  I'm sure if you compare the real downtown with its suburban imitators, you will see the differences I am talking about.

Another thing she talks about is historical buildings.  These are not just important for their charm, they are important because they allow rentable space for businesses that can't afford to build or rent something new.  Look at all the restaurants in the north end of downtown - they didn't build new buildings, they inhabited old ones.  It is not feasible to build new buildings there just for a restaurant, unless you are a big corporation like Landry's.  But when you have a new "urban village," everything has to be built new.  That is why the only stores and restaurants you see there are high end, corporate chains - they're the only ones that can afford it.  There are no "hole-in-the-wall"s.  And to have a lively, diverse urban neighborhood, you need "hole-in-the-wall"s. 

As far as I can tell, for these and many more reasons that would take up too much space to list, I think that in the years to come Houston will see many more urban fantasylands going up in the suburbs, as well as bland, sterile office parks, but few new downtowns.  We may as well work on adding to the one we've got.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, what you are trying to say is that it probably won't work?

JK- I got your point completely. Thank you for the in-depth info.

I guess it is back to the drawing board- adding to DT, MT and UT.

Oh well, i thought i was onto something.

m.

[kjb434]

Has anyone heard of Memorial City. This Urban Village is currently under construction. It will be a large mixed used urban center.

Commercial retail, office, medical office, and residential.

We have a whole thread on this project.

[RedScare]

marc,

These employment centers will work...just look at the numerous ones that already exist. They will just never approach the feel of a real downtown. The fact is, these mini downtowns are important in reducing the effects of sprawl. A shorter commute is a shorter commute, wherever you are going to work. And any one mini dt may have some very attractive features, just not all of them.

It is important to link these centers with efficient mass transit. Metro seems to understand that concept. Many of the closer ones will be linked by 2012. The farther ones will take time.

[Kirzania]

Ok, maybe I'm reading this entire thread wrong... Am I to understand you want to build something like The Village of West Clay and then have a bunch of them around the city, eventually connected?

I am in love with this idea, really. Bringing back that whole sense of a "town," where you walk to the grocery store, the bank, your insurance company, whatever. More importantly, I adore (the majority) of the architecture in this neighborhood. These houses are truly amazing and every one I've ever been in makes it impossible to say, "I could never live here." Even the brownstones are adorable...

[H-Town Man]

I am a bit prejudiced, but I generally see the new "urban villages" in most cities as yuppie play areas. I get much more "feel" from a gritty street like Airline or Navigation, even if it is less pedestrian friendly, than from a faux creation like Sugar Land Town Center. That said, anything that reduces sprawl I am in favor of, and if building live/work/play towncenters in the suburbs will do that, then I say go for it. But I would rather see one building going up in the real downtown than ten buildings going up elsewhere. That is the real heart of the city, the real place where everyone can come together, the best antidote to sprawl.

[SpringTX]

Marc, a city evolves organically. H-Town Man gave some good examples of how the interplay of different, competing interests results in a complex solution that meets the needs of many. It's all based on economics of the free market. You can't force a downtown to exist someplace. A city planner could say "the next downtown should be at point A", but there's no guarantee businesses will locate there. The rents could be too high. The commutes could be too long. The parking could be insufficient.

Authorities could build a new road someplace (an example is the Grand Parkway)...but that's no guarantee anyone will drive down it. Many cities have built rail lines that no one rides, for example. Architects often build parks that sit vacant and unused. "If you build...they won't necessarily come" is the rule. Elegant and coherent geometric designs mean NOTHING to cities in real-life. Cities will meander in maddening ways...because they need to.

To truly affect a city in a positive way, you must look upon it as a vibrant organism, full of dead limbs, new growth, holes, and uneven branches. A city must adapt and grow at all times, or it dies. A city must be viewed as a fluid, adaptive, transient progression of solutions, each hopefully appropriate for its current context. The "right" solution for Houston in terms of number and location of downtowns isn't the same as the "right" solution 5 years or 10 years from now. The job of an urban planner is to identify, encourage, and monitor growth based on an understanding of the underlying economics.

[H-Town Man]

SpringTX, I really liked your post. I think that our suburbs have grown organically, and that the many clusters of office buildings that we have spread around are a part of this organic (albeit sprawling) growth.

One thing that I think makes them different from the original downtown though is mixture and concentration of uses. These clumps of skyscrapers, like Greenspoint and Westchase, that from a distance seem like a "new downtown," are really very narrow in use - they provide office space for large companies, and they might have some retail or a couple of restaurants thrown in. Even an attempted all-around "village" like the Woodlands town center is still somewhat narrow - it offers office space, high end shopping, restaurants (for those chains that can afford the rent), and some leisure space, but how many of the real needs of people who live in The Woodlands are served not by the town center, but by the long messy assemblage of different businesses along I-45?

Whereas downtown offers not just office space, restaurants, and some retail, but also churches, a hospital, charity centers and shelters, govt. institutions, education, convenience stores, even jails. The reason these are all mixed together here is that downtown is a relic of a time when these things had to be close together, in walking distance. All these things can be found in the suburbs, but they are spread apart and isolated from one another. The new "urban villages" at best combine only a few of them. The suburbs, like you say, will be guided by what the market demands, and I doubt the market will demand something as mixed and varied as the original downtown ever again.

[bachanon]

great posts, h-town man and springtx. it is easy to imagine an ideal development or desired growth pattern, but the realities of human nature and car culture may outweigh efforts (noble as they may be) to create "live, work, play" districts.

do you think it possible to focus growth towards our existing centers? a

vibrant organism, full of dead limbs, new growth, holes, and uneven branches

can benefit from directed pruning (branches and roots) and fertilization. houston's city centers may "bloom" when mass transit (fertilization) connects them to each other. in this context, pruning might be simply facilitating new uses for unused buildings or redevelopment projects. lakewood church at greenway plaza for example, or the redevelopment of the pavilion at post oak and san felipe with retail, residential, hotel, etc.

i don't see the urban village like the town center district in the woodlands or sugarland's town center. i see an urban village as a walkable neighborhood, with or without skyscapers, with most amenities anyone would need for daily life. a grocery, a cleaners, a bank, a daycare, a church, a doctor, a dentist, a school, etc. and mass transit connecting to other urban villages. however, knowing what we know (as h-town has described so well), it may be futile to wish for such a thing in this day and age.

perhaps the free wheeling, non zoned houston that we love so much is doing all right after all.

[H-Town Man]

bachanon,

I'm with you on the walkable neighborhood thing. I just didn't think that was what the original poster was talking about when he described "multiple downtowns." If the neighborhood is just residential with shops, I wouldn't call it a downtown. The Woodlands Town Center is aiming to be a lot more, with offices, hotels, a convention center, etc. The Heights is a walkable neighborhood with shops.

I think that as we build rail lines, we will see pockets of walkability build up along them. It would be nice if a large swath of the city could be made walkable, with the city developing street, sidewalk, and land use (!!!) guidelines that would lead to a uniform urban district. The only place that really has a chance for this is Midtown, because of the street grid and infrastructure. What I think we'll see in most places, as rising gas prices and jammed highways push more people into the city, is a hodge-podge patchwork of walkable environments, often separated from one another or ending abruptly in starkly unwalkable environments, based on who owns the land and what he or she decides to do with it. On one corner of a major intersection you will have a mixed-use development with shops, courtyards, etc., on another corner you will have a gas station, on another corner a condo tower with parking decks... you get the idea.

I would look for this to start happening along the Richmond line, probably even before it happens on the Main Street line. The Richmond line runs through more affluent areas that offer a yuppie-safe environment, and will be attractive to people who want to live in an urban-style apartment and ride the train to work.

[lockmat]

I think there are a couple of problems. For one thing, just having a bunch of office buildings in one location doesn't make a downtown. What is unique about downtown is the street grid that allows a high concentration of businesses and other institutions (like entertainment and cultural institutions) to interact with one another, leading to a sense of "place" that is greater than the sum of its parts.

If that were the case, would anyone describe downtown Houston as a downtown ten years ago?

To bring that, more residential should be brought in, IMO

[musicman]

If that were the case, would anyone describe downtown Houston as a downtown ten years ago?

To bring that, more residential should be brought in, IMO

Downtown was downtown ten yrs ago.

[lockmat]

Downtown was downtown ten yrs ago.

Ten years ago you think downtown Houston brought, "businesses and other institutions (like entertainment and cultural institutions) to interact with one another, leading to a sense of "place" that is greater than the sum of its parts.?"

Maybe it wasn't ten years ago, but I'm thinking of just before the revitilization of it.

Edited January 11, 2007 by lockmat

[musicman]

Ten years ago you think downtown Houston brought, "businesses and other institutions (like entertainment and cultural institutions) to interact with one another, leading to a sense of "place" that is greater than the sum of its parts.?"

Maybe it wasn't ten years ago, but I'm thinking of just before the revitilization of it.

The best places were there prior to the "revitalization" I do like the addition of Mia Bella but the rest are nothing special.

[ricco67]

You know, I was talking to a few of the tourists from the recent bowl game and they gave me something to think about as far as downtown.

Most of the ones I spoke to were shacked up over at the Hyatt Regency DT, but I talked to a few that stayed at the Magnolia, Doubletree (DT) and Galleria.

The people that stayed in the galleria enjoyed the stay alot, but getting to the Stadium was a pain.

The ones that stayed DT were mixed in their reviews:

One thing is common though: they ALL loved the fact that the rail was easy access.

The ones that had the most positive experiences stayed at the Magnolia, Icon, Marriot, and Alden. They said that some of the clubs and resturants nearby was a major plus.

The least positive experience were staying at Doubletree and Hyatt. Their chief complaints is that they felt that they were staying in the boonies as far as downtown went, but the walk wasn't that bad for them. But they did feel as if they were rather remote.

even a few of the eating establishments that were nearby didn't seem to meet the variety of tastes.

I think that the Pavillions would add a whole new dimension for the tourists that come to the area.

Anyway, that was my observation as far as "mini downtowns."

[musicman]

The least positive experience were staying at Doubletree and Hyatt. Their chief complaints is that they felt that they were staying in the boonies as far as downtown went, but the walk wasn't that bad for them. But they did feel as if they were rather remote.

even a few of the eating establishments that were nearby didn't seem to meet the variety of tastes.

I think that the Pavillions would add a whole new dimension for the tourists that come to the area.

Anyway, that was my observation as far as "mini downtowns."

The Hyatt and doubletree have the courtesy vans that will take you around downtown for free. guess they didn't use those cause door to door service is about as good as it gets. the four seasons has it too.

[ricco67]

Well, I didn't meet anyone that stayed at the Four seasons. They told me they made extensive use of the Courtesy vans, but there was a forever wait for them to return.

[musicman]

Well, I didn't meet anyone that stayed at the Four seasons. They told me they made extensive use of the Courtesy vans, but there was a forever wait for them to return.

i can believe that. As for the Pavillions.....we'll see what happens. The albert thomas conversion was going to change downtown as well but really hasn't made a difference to the average citizen. After the hype is over is when its success will be determined. Will people continue to come?