Shamrock Tower At 617 Main St.

[LTAWACS]

Surprisingly, even with the lack of advertising the group has gotten the majority of the units reserved.  If they are currently in the process of turning these reservations into contracts, the timeline could be way off for construction start.  The financing arms of the project won't hand over the go ahead for construction until a certain percentage of the reservations are turn into contracts which could take a while.

Also, Orion didn't start televised ads until they started clearing and early stages of foundation work.  The television advertisments are just to possibly finish selling units.  The most effective form of advertising for high-rises is through a realtor and print advertisement.  The potential residents of these facilities probably doin't watch much TV to begin with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. I rarely watch tv. I only watch the news, the game sometimes, and some Frontline, Discover, Science channels.

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[Montrose1100]

Well you know nobody would know about Palisade Plams if it where not for the Bill Boards, and the thing in the Galleria...

Advertisement is key, it grabs peoples attention. Expecially on the Highway, where everyone drives.

[N Judah]

I think high rise type projects do a lot of direct mailing.

[YakuzaIce]

Strange that it started out so big, but now they're having a hard time filling up slots in the smaller one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that the reason it started out so big was because they thought they could acquire the building behind, but for some reason something fell through. I want to say they own the building though. So after it couldn't be the full city block they changed it to the design we know today. If anyone can correct any of this or can add things it would be appreciated.

"I only watch the news" -LTAWACS

Most of the ads for Orion I have seen are during the news. Just wondering has anyone else seen the ads on non local channels, and if so what shows?

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[NYC Texan3]

This may be slightly off track but is actually relevant, given the continued trouble getting anything built on a vacant lot downtown. I would be surprised if no one has made this observation before, but I believe we can blame a lot of the desolation in downtown on a lack of zoning. The fact is that many major cities provide size and use regulations for given parcels of land, limiting the height of buildings and their purpose. In downtown, we see the entire east end having been decimated over the years by speculators hoping some developer is going to pick their parcel for the next skyscraper. There's no incentive to maintain the original, low rise character or historic buildings in the neighborhood, which are of course long gone. The vacant lots are all I have known my entire life.

Let me insert at this point that I am as Republican as they come, but I have always stood by this town and am getting frustrated. Manhattan is built on buildings that average about 10 stories in height. If Houston ever decides to grow up and passes zoning, you would probably see a lot more rational transactions between landowners and developers, since the economic gains from development would be much more clearly defined. When you take away the small possibility of a mega-payday 15 years down the road, people will settle for a more reasonable sum in the short term as their best deal.

The longer I live here, the more silly the anti-zoning thing seems. Heights Blvd is being redeveloped, but it is turning into a bunch of law offices because there isn't anyone to limit the use as residential. Businesses with signs and factories sit in the middle of neighborhoods and the city is totally powerless to restore stability. Yes, some of these intrusions came into the neighborhood when the area was on its heels--isn't that when the neighborhood needs greatest protection? If the character should then change, shouldn't that be a decision made with input of elected representatives? And if the last ten years have proved the popularity of Houston's inner city as a place to live, wouldn't we be even better off if there were intact neighborhoods for people to return to?

[tw2ntyse7en]

...

[kzseattle]

This may be slightly off track but is actually relevant, given the continued trouble getting anything built on a vacant lot downtown.

[2112]

Welcome to the forum, NYC Texan!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can see NYCTexan!'s face right now.

FYI, he has been with the forum for several years allready.

[2112]

     

I can see NYCTexan!'s face right now.

FYI, he has been with the forum for several years allready.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh wait. Is he a different NYCTEXAN!? A third one?

[NYC Texan2]

Nope, same guy . . . Finally gave up trying to re-register from my home computer and just started from scratch . . . It's not "safe" writing from work, so I have been keeping a low profile.

I actually live in the Heights as well, so my comments are firsthand. Yes, you move to a neighborhood knowing what is there, but the more you get to know it, you just ask yourself, "why?" I lived in the strip of the Museum District between Richmond and 59 previously, and I saw the same exact phenomenon there. The problem is definitely not particular to the Heights.

[kzseattle]

Nope, same guy . . .  Finally gave up trying to re-register from my home computer and just started from scratch . . .  It's not "safe" writing from work, so I have been keeping a low profile.

I actually live in the Heights as well, so my comments are firsthand.  Yes, you move to a neighborhood knowing what is there, but the more you get to know it, you just ask yourself, "why?"  I lived in the strip of the Museum District between Richmond and 59 previously, and I saw the same exact phenomenon there.  The problem is definitely not particular to the Heights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, ok. I saw you joined yesterday and it was your first post so assumed you were a new member. Well, then. Welcome to the fourm as the third incarnation of NYC Texan

[H-Town Man]

Welcome to the forum, NYC Texan! Believe me, zoning has been discussed many times before and I have always expressed my skepticism about blaming lack of zoning for every issue in this town. It would help greatly if someone could explain clearly what do zoning laws regulate but it is my understanding that they only determine land use. I would imagine that there are different regulations to deal with size, height and the architecture of a structure.

Don

[77017]

/\/\/\/\

That was 1 of the most insightful and accurate posts I've ever read on any forum. U hit tha f**k outta tha head of the nail on that one. I don't think anyone could have said that better.

[kzseattle]

Actually he's quite right in assuming that a zoning ordinance would regulate size, height, and architecture; that is what zoning ordinances do (in addition to land use).  And it has been observed before, and is true, that if Houston had zoning, most of those smaller buildings downtown would probably not have been destroyed in the excitement of speculation for a skyscraper, and the land costs would not be as prohibitive to building new low-rise buildings there now.

In fact, there would be much fewer of the fenced off, weed-choked lots you see on major avenues all over town.  Think about it.  If a street like Montrose Blvd., which was once lined with mansions, is zoned to be residential only, and furthermore the laws stipulate that there can only be one family living per land parcel, and the parcels cannot be divided, then there is no incentive to tear down the mansions (other than decay or what not). 

But if you can build ANYTHING you want, and this is a major blvd., then instead of keeping the house on the corner of Montrose and Alabama when grandma dies, it makes more sense to tear it down and sell it to someone to develop as a gas station.  Or for a different parcel it might make more sense to tear the house down and build a high rise, or just tear it down to make the land look attractive and HOPE that someone comes along wanting to build a highrise.

Well then, what does this due to the people still wanting to live in their old mansions?  Now that there is a high rise overshadowing them, and a gas station two doors down, and a vacant lot across the street with a bunch of broken bottles and hypodermic needles, suddenly the prospects of sticking around aren't too attractive, and they leave.  It creates a domino effect.

And thus you end up with the kind of scarred, disintegrated neighborhoods that we have all over the city today.  I am not personally decided in favor of zoning, but these are the facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the explanation. I know that there is no question about lack of zoning creating the kind of problems you have described and such problems certainly do exist in this town.

However, the questions I was trying to tackle were 1) Is lack zoning responsible for what has been happening with Shamrock Towers and 2) Is lack of zoning responsible for the lack of street life and residential interest in down town Houston.

As I mentioned, downtowns in other zoned cities such as LA and Atlanta are facing the similar challenges that we are despite the fact that zoning laws do exist there. This raises the question if there are indeed other factors, besides lack of zoning, that need to be addressed before DT can become a vibrant and lively district.

With regards to Shamrock Towers, the question is can we really associate their lack of progress with lack of zoning? Couldn

[YakuzaIce]

I believe with Shamrock it is nearly 100 percent the ineptitude of the developers.

With regard to strip malls zoning may eliminate some, but I do not think that there would be none. But there would be less suburban CVS's and other things in Midtown and other places.

[N Judah]

I'm sure changing the ordinances and coming up with new 'planning guidelines' (esp. around the rail stops) will be just as good if not better than outright zoning, esp. when it comes to defending against the situations discussed here. A lot of people blame the absence of zoning for a lot of things, but most of the pro-zoning sentiment comes from people opposed to change, simply trying to protect their property values. And ordinarily I wouldn't butt into other people's attempts to protect their investment, but in a city expecting to add several million new residents in the coming years I'm afraid we're just going to have to break some eggs to make an omelet.

[NYC Texan3]

"but most of the pro-zoning sentiment comes from people opposed to change, simply trying to protect their property values. "

I don't understand your point. Zoning allows decisions regarding the future of neighborhoods to be made by elected representatives of the people who already live in the neighborhood, rather than developers (who most likely live in Sugarland). What exactly is the problem with people trying to protect their property values? What would be an exampled of a property value-destroying project that you would support? This city has an excess supply of vacant land for developers to use for their projects. This ain't exactly Manhattan.

No offense, but it is interesting to point out the attitude here. This city positively oozes paranoia about property rights. When you compare where every other major city in the country is, including every other major city in Texas, you really have to stand back in amazement at the myth the developers have sold to Houstonians. We shoot ourselves in the foot for a principal that hurts the city we care about. And before you blow me off, I probably vote more Republican than you. The point here is that Houstonians need to think as they pass both new and old eyesores, "why?"

[kzseattle]

"but most of the pro-zoning sentiment comes from people opposed to change, simply trying to protect their property values. "

I don't understand your point.  Zoning allows decisions regarding the future of neighborhoods to be made by elected representatives of the people who already live in the neighborhood, rather than developers (who most likely live in Sugarland).  What exactly is the problem with people trying to protect their property values?  What would be an exampled of a property value-destroying project that you would support?  This city has an excess supply of vacant land for developers to use for their projects.  This ain't exactly Manhattan.

No offense, but it is interesting to point out the attitude here.  This city positively oozes paranoia about property rights.  When you compare where every other major city in the country is, including every other major city in Texas, you really have to stand back in amazement at the myth the developers have sold to Houstonians.  We shoot ourselves in the foot for a principal that hurts the city we care about.  And before you blow me off, I probably vote more Republican than you.  The point here is that Houstonians need to think as they pass both new and old eyesores, "why?"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have always wondered why Houstonians have always voted against zoning. Apparently, only the developers really benefit from lack of zoning. It seems that when it's time to vote, only developers show up at the booth.

[N Judah]

Apparently, only the developers really benefit from lack of zoning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

KZ, have you ever really sat down and thought through *why* you can't afford to live in Seattle anymore?

[N Judah]

"Zoning allows decisions regarding the future of neighborhoods to be made by elected representatives of the people who already live in the neighborhood, rather than developers (who most likely live in Sugarland)."

Having decisions made about the neighborhood on behalf of people who already live in the neighborhood usually comes at the expense of people who might live in the neighborhood in the future, and at the expense of people in other neighborhoods who have to deal with the influx of people priced out of your neighborhood.

"This city has an excess supply of vacant land for developers to use for their projects. This ain't exactly Manhattan."

I never saw development as being about building for building's sake. I think the best use of the land is decided by the market, not by what is or isn't already developed.

"This city positively oozes paranoia about property rights."

Nah...paranoia about property rights is having to petition the local design review board before you can re-paint your garage. It's having to get signatures from all the neighbors before you can put a dangerous power line underground (like in that episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm). It's not being able to have a basketball hoop in your driveway like in Irvine CA.

"When you compare where every other major city in the country is, including every other major city in Texas, you really have to stand back in amazement at the myth the developers have sold to Houstonians. We shoot ourselves in the foot for a principal that hurts the city we care about."

I feel the same way about zoning. I don't think narrow-minded neighborhood associations should be deciding what the best use of land is, particularly in a large city on the brink of realizing its true potential. I believe there should be some kind of master plan at work, one that takes into account the impacts, economic historical and transit-wise, that building or not building something in one area will have on another. But it should come from the top, like a benevolent philosopher-king who transcends the infantile I-got-mine-and-I-don't-care-if-you-get-yours NIMBYism. Or else there should be nothing at all.

While we're on the topic, I support the idea of super strict planning guidelines around LRT stations because I think it would be interesting to see what would happen. I'm thinking that if there ever were a time and place to do a test run of some kind of city-cultivation process more advanced than zoning, this would be it.

"The point here is that Houstonians need to think as they pass both new and old eyesores, "why?""

Zoning in Houston probably won't eliminate eyesores. It will add an extra political layer that developers with enough money and patience will game to their benefit. There are many zoned cities out there that have eyesores.

[LTAWACS]

I think Zoning is starting to look better and better for Houston.

[H-Town Man]

I have always wondered why Houstonians have always voted against zoning. Apparently, only the developers really benefit from lack of zoning. It seems that when it's time to vote, only developers show up at the booth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Campaigns for local issues are decided by who has the advertising money. In the 1993 (or was it '91?) zoning referendum, early polls showed that Houstonians favored zoning. Then a large coalition of powerful developers hired Dennis Calabrese to design an advertising campaign that would scare Houstonians away from zoning. The slogan he came up with was "The Only Thing Worse Than A Bad Plan Is No Plan At All." The idea was to admit that planning in Houston was bad, but that with zoning it would be miserable, because the zoners didn't have a plan. It didn't make a lot of sense, but it worked, and zoning lost by a huge margin.

Most of you have probably seen this guy's work on a more recent slogan: "Costs Too Much... Does Too Little." He was hired by Texans for True Mobility for the anti-rail campaign a couple years ago. This time, however, he lost.

[kzseattle]

Campaigns for local issues are decided by who has the advertising money.  In the 1993 (or was it '91?) zoning referendum, early polls showed that Houstonians favored zoning.  Then a large coalition of powerful developers hired Dennis Calabrese to design an advertising campaign that would scare Houstonians away from zoning.  The slogan he came up with was "The Only Thing Worse Than A Bad Plan Is No Plan At All."  The idea was to admit that planning in Houston was bad, but that with zoning it would be miserable, because the zoners didn't have a plan.  It didn't make a lot of sense, but it worked, and zoning lost by a huge margin.

Most of you have probably seen this guy's work on a more recent slogan: "Costs Too Much... Does Too Little."  He was hired by Texans for True Mobility for the anti-rail campaign a couple years ago.  This time, however, he lost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow! So one guy single-handedly changed the fate of Houston! Where does he live? Sugarland? Woodlands? Dallas or Austin, perhaps?

[H-Town Man]

Thanks for the explanation. I know that there is no question about lack of zoning creating the kind of problems you have described and such problems certainly do exist in this town.

However, the questions I was trying to tackle were 1) Is lack zoning responsible for what has been happening with Shamrock Towers and 2) Is lack of zoning responsible for the lack of street life and residential interest in down town Houston.

As I mentioned, downtowns in other zoned cities such as LA and Atlanta are facing the similar challenges that we are despite the fact that zoning laws do exist there.

[N Judah]

What if someone decides to take a risk with a mixed-use apartment complex with balcony lofts and a sidewalk cafe environment, and then somebody else builds a monstrous parking garage across the street, with cars spilling out or trucks unloading all evening long right across from our nice cafe?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see why this situation can't be defended against with design guidelines or ordinances. Usually if you require some kind of ground level retail and those screens that help it blend in (not to mention some kind of height ordinance keeping it from getting too tall), it works out fine (and I've seen examples of this personally). Parking garages have to go somewhere...until this town gets a heavy-rail system in 2035, most people will be driving and then taking the LRT, or just driving period...

Or maybe have zoning, but just around transit nodes -- no reason why everyone in the city has to be punished for the perceived rights of a few to have a walkable yuppscale environment in one little sliver of the inner loop...

[H-Town Man]

Everyone has to be punished? What on earth are you talking about? First, I am not arguing in favor of zoning - just giving the facts. Secondly, I think if you talk to the residents of most cities around the country that have zoning, they will not perceive that they are being in any way "punished." Third, on the point that parking garages have to go somewhere, well duh, but perhaps we can put a little thought into WHERE they should go, so that we don't have catastrophes like the one on Main Street downtown where beautiful buildings have been destroyed for the sake of parking garages, and now it is difficult to start a pedestrian friendly environment.

[LTAWACS]

Next time the issue comes up, I'm voting for Zoning. All the waY!!!!

[Subdude]

no reason why everyone in the city has to be punished for the perceived rights of a few to have a walkable yuppscale environment in one little sliver of the inner loop...

Why would zoning be perceived as punishment? If anything, property owners generally like it because it helps preserve the value of their property. (Ask residents of West U.) That explains why you don't see a flood of citizens in other cities demanding that their zoning regulations be repealed so that they can be more like Houston. That's not to say there's no problems with zoning, but it's a useful tool to help create better neighborhoods and maintain property values.

H-town thanks for the interesting post.