Mixed-Use Parking Garage At 820 Main St.

[Subdude]

I agree completely. I feel as Houstonians we are still in the "beggars aren't choosers" stage of urban planning & development. Hey, we got a nine-story garage on the downtown Main St. corridor. This will only promote more growth for downtown.

Why in the world should we have to consider ourselves in the "beggars aren't choosers" stage? Why should we always be content with second-rate garbage? Doesn't our city deserve the best? Do you seriously expect that we should all be thrilled and fall over in gratitude because some developer throws up some crap parking garage at the heart of Main Street? No, I'm not trying to make the city over into Manhattan or whatnot, so don't give me that, but I'm not going to be content with garbage like this. I want Houston to do better.

[sevfiv]

^ i second that. the problem is that these developers who build crap still make money off the crap. the minute they don't, maybe things will change.

[Guest danax]

Here's the link.

It's good to see something like this get some publicity and it shows that things are changing a bit.

Maybe they could construct some large planter boxes with a drip system on the roof and grow cascading ivy down the sides. There's a great opportunity for some creativity here.

C'mon, Hines. At least pretend to show us that Houston means more to you than just a place to rape and pillage.

[musicman]

Why in the world should we have to consider ourselves in the "beggars aren't choosers" stage? Why should we always be content with second-rate garbage?

it is easy to say when someone else is footing the bill. but when you have to foot the bill, i'm sure finances would come into play too just like it does for hines.

[TheNiche]

Why in the world should we have to consider ourselves in the "beggars aren't choosers" stage? Why should we always be content with second-rate garbage? Doesn't our city deserve the best? Do you seriously expect that we should all be thrilled and fall over in gratitude because some developer throws up some crap parking garage at the heart of Main Street? No, I'm not trying to make the city over into Manhattan or whatnot, so don't give me that, but I'm not going to be content with garbage like this. I want Houston to do better.

There is no "beggars aren't choosers" stage. No city is exempt from the fact that placing restrictions on development that increase its cost is going to discourage and reduce development. It is a tradeoff.

[Jeebus]

Why in the world should we have to consider ourselves in the "beggars aren't choosers" stage?

Because if Hines didn't build it, nothing would be there now. Sure, someone might have come along and built something better at a later date - but when? And as Niche pointed out, if we restricted development too much, then nothing will be built. As of now we have 9 additional floors worth of parking that was not there before.

The only thing they need to fix is the light bleed-over issue.

[KinkaidAlum]

Actually, if Hines didn't develop it, we'd still have an old building standing there. This garage didn't go up on a vacant lot.

Additionally, the comments from The Niche about building codes and restrictions leading to a decrease in development overall is simply not true. There are several cities in the USA with very strict design/build codes and they are booming. Boston, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, and Portland all spring to mind.

With the local economy buzzing along and the state gaining over 500,000 residents last year, developers would still be jumping to get into the market whether or not Houston had more restrictive policies on the books.

[TheNiche]

Additionally, the comments from The Niche about building codes and restrictions leading to a decrease in development overall is simply not true. There are several cities in the USA with very strict design/build codes and they are booming. Boston, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, and Portland all spring to mind.

Pick your fights more wisely...

ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH RATE BY METROPOLITAN AREA, May 2006 to May 2007

Boston = 1.2%

Chicago = 1.0%

New York City = 0.8%

Portland = 1.6%

Seattle = 2.9%

Atlanta = 1.7%

Dallas = 3.2%

Houston = 3.3%

Phoenix = 3.7%

San Antonio = 2.4%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

With the local economy buzzing along and the state gaining over 500,000 residents last year, developers would still be jumping to get into the market whether or not Houston had more restrictive policies on the books.

Developers won't build what people can't afford or don't want. In places like Houston, more people can afford what they want, and so they buy it and developers build more of it to continue the process. It's a beautiful system we've got here. Places like NYC...well they suck. You have to pay people much higher wages for them to be willing to live there.

Why do you think the state gained so many residents last year? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Guest Marty]

Nope -- those cables are the barrier, I believe.

I see it now, maybe they can install some sheet metal panels for the lower portion to block the headlights and one on top to filter the glare from the light fixtures.

Edited July 29, 2007 by Marty

[KinkaidAlum]

Pick your fights more wisely...

ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH RATE BY METROPOLITAN AREA, May 2006 to May 2007

Boston = 1.2%

Chicago = 1.0%

New York City = 0.8%

Portland = 1.6%

Seattle = 2.9%

Atlanta = 1.7%

Dallas = 3.2%

Houston = 3.3%

Phoenix = 3.7%

San Antonio = 2.4%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Developers won't build what people can't afford or don't want. In places like Houston, more people can afford what they want, and so they buy it and developers build more of it to continue the process. It's a beautiful system we've got here. Places like NYC...well they suck. You have to pay people much higher wages for them to be willing to live there.

Why do you think the state gained so many residents last year? Inquiring minds want to know.

I should pick my fights more wisely?

We weren't talking about employment growth over the last year. We were talking about building codes and regulations and how you claimed they lead to a decrease in overall development.

Get back to me when you think the cities I listed are lagging behind Houston in noteable development.

[Subdude]

Pick your fights more wisely...

ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH RATE BY METROPOLITAN AREA, May 2006 to May 2007

Boston = 1.2%

Chicago = 1.0%

New York City = 0.8%

Portland = 1.6%

Seattle = 2.9%

Atlanta = 1.7%

Dallas = 3.2%

Houston = 3.3%

Phoenix = 3.7%

San Antonio = 2.4%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Developers won't build what people can't afford or don't want. In places like Houston, more people can afford what they want, and so they buy it and developers build more of it to continue the process. It's a beautiful system we've got here. Places like NYC...well they suck. You have to pay people much higher wages for them to be willing to live there.

Why do you think the state gained so many residents last year? Inquiring minds want to know.

C'mon here. No one is talking about restricting development here. But that doesn't mean it has to be lowest common denominator garbage. The whole argument that Houston's growth rate must be attributable to crap development like this parking garage is bogus. You are tossing out statistics then implying that it must be a result of a tolerance for ugly structures. Correlation isn't causation, buddy. I can't believe that ANY sort of design guidelines would cause our growth rate to crash. Is there really no middle ground between restricting development to the point that it ceases, and allowing developers to throw up any kind of garbage they happen to feel like, or destroy older buildings? I don't buy it, not for a minute. And neither does any other large city in the US.

C'mon here. No one is talking about restricting development here. But that doesn't mean it has to be lowest common denominator garbage. The whole argument that Houston's growth rate must be attributable to crap development like this parking garage is bogus. You are tossing out statistics then implying that it must be a result of a tolerance for ugly structures. Correlation isn't causation, buddy. I can't believe that ANY sort of design guidelines would cause our growth rate to crash. Is there really no middle ground between restricting development to the point that it ceases, and allowing developers to throw up any kind of garbage they happen to feel like, or destroy older buildings? I don't buy it, not for a minute. And neither does any other large city in the US.

it is easy to say when someone else is footing the bill. but when you have to foot the bill, i'm sure finances would come into play too just like it does for hines.

Oh, poor developers! Give me a break - we're talking Hines Devlopment here. I can't really whip up a lot of sympathy for their financing situation. And even if I could, I still don't think we should all settle for the lowest possible standard of urban development.

[musicman]

Oh, poor developers! Give me a break - we're talking Hines Devlopment here. I can't really whip up a lot of sympathy for their financing situation. And even if I could, I still don't think we should all settle for the lowest possible standard of urban development.

The developers aren't the ones complaining. the ideal situation would be that everyone had infinite money to build their homes (or whatever). But reality sets in and people DO have a budget.

if you're concerned about the "lowest possible standard of urban development," i'm sure Peter Brown's office door will be wide open to listen since he has a plan to revamp the system but we've seen nothing at this point.

Edited July 29, 2007 by musicman

[RedScare]

There are two different issues in play here. One, the overall design of the garage, cannot be addressed with restrictions anyway, at least not without Draconian architectural committees, such as is seen in suburban housing developments. No city needs to be in the architectural significance business.

The other issue, light pollution, CAN and SHOULD be regulated by cities. This is not zoning, it is restricting infringement on the use of neighboring properties. As Houston apparently does not have such an ordinance, it should consider one. As bright as the lights are, I also suspect that our Commerce Tower neighbors will keep this issue alive, until Hines finds a way to mitigate the problem.

The uproar over the look of this garage illuminates (pun) the problem with dictating architectural standards. This garage IS somewhat architecturally significant, in that it is a classic example of minimalist architecture. That so many find it unattractive does not change this fact. Look at the former HISD Admin building. Some liked it. Others hated it. However, it DOES show the problems that architectural standards can cause. The standards tend to discourage creative designs in favor of "blending in", a term that defines sameness. I find many of the photos posted here of other parking garages far uglier than this garage, yet the posters put them up as examples of better architectural design.

I can understand some developments having a common architectural theme. I can understand attempting to mask parking structures occasionally. But, Downtown Houston is not a development. It is visually vibrant BECAUSE there is no architectural theme. In fact, the recent trend toward "town centers" incorporates differing architectural styles to attempt to emulate the scattershot look of downtowns.

I support the attempts to get Hines to mitigate the light pollution. I support the rights of posters to denigrate the design of the structure, though I kind of like its minimalism myself. I oppose calls for architectural design standards in downtown.

[H-Town Man]

It actually seems to echo the design of the original First City Tower by SOM down the street. Maybe Hines put more into this design than previously thought!

[ricco67]

Red has it.

The only buildings that go match each other are those that were either made around the same general era or those that wanted to compliment a particular building or materials for whatever reason.

Developers/companies will only build buildings that talk about THEM. They don't really care if they want to stand "grander" than the other across the street (unless ego and a large amount of funds come into play). The only real thing that the city MIGHT need to do is to regulate light pollution as the population downtown increases.

For the parking garage to be a good neighbor, something has to be done about the amount of light going in. I'm not an engineer, but I would imagine a relatively simple solution would be able to alleviate this problem.

[Subdude]

There are two different issues in play here. One, the overall design of the garage, cannot be addressed with restrictions anyway, at least not without Draconian architectural committees, such as is seen in suburban housing developments. No city needs to be in the architectural significance business.

The other issue, light pollution, CAN and SHOULD be regulated by cities. This is not zoning, it is restricting infringement on the use of neighboring properties. As Houston apparently does not have such an ordinance, it should consider one. As bright as the lights are, I also suspect that our Commerce Tower neighbors will keep this issue alive, until Hines finds a way to mitigate the problem.

The uproar over the look of this garage illuminates (pun) the problem with dictating architectural standards. This garage IS somewhat architecturally significant, in that it is a classic example of minimalist architecture.

To me, good minimalism means something different than mere utilitarianism. Good minimalism has a degree of intellectual rigor and respect for design, as opposed to being just cheap and expedient. It

[TheNiche]

C'mon here. No one is talking about restricting development here.

Why in the world should we have to consider ourselves in the "beggars aren't choosers" stage? Why should we always be content with second-rate garbage? Doesn't our city deserve the best? Do you seriously expect that we should all be thrilled and fall over in gratitude because some developer throws up some crap parking garage at the heart of Main Street? No, I'm not trying to make the city over into Manhattan or whatnot, so don't give me that, but I'm not going to be content with garbage like this. I want Houston to do better.

There is no "beggars aren't choosers" stage. No city is exempt from the fact that placing restrictions on development that increase its cost is going to discourage and reduce development. It is a tradeoff.

the comments from The Niche about building codes and restrictions leading to a decrease in development overall is simply not true.

You want something that you perceive as "better". You are frustrated with the way things are and you apparently want change. As you are not in a position to influence change for instance by changing broad consumer tastes or influencing market forces, it is implicit that you would advocate change via a political route. ...unless I'm wrong and you're just whining without recourse.

My response was a very general one, which addressed the general issue rather than just this one parking garage (as was implied by Jeebus). Kinkaid's absurd response to me was addressing the general tendencies as well. So yes, it appears that we actually are talking about restricting development.

We weren't talking about employment growth over the last year. We were talking about building codes and regulations and how you claimed they lead to a decrease in overall development.

Uh...yeah, you think that there might just on some off chance be a connection between employment growth and construction?

Get back to me when you think the cities I listed are lagging behind Houston in noteable development.

How about we take a second glance at permitting activity, as I brought up in this thread on Friday? Houston tops the nation in terms of housing permits, having issued nearly six times as many housing permits as your beloved Boston.

...I did notice though, that now you're talking about notable development. Allow me to define for you what I think is notable. It is a simple definition. It goes: "When people can afford what they want."

There are two different issues in play here. One, the overall design of the garage, cannot be addressed with restrictions anyway, at least not without Draconian architectural committees, such as is seen in suburban housing developments. No city needs to be in the architectural significance business.

Concur 100%.

Edited July 30, 2007 by TheNiche

[GovernorAggie]

Pick your fights more wisely...

ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH RATE BY METROPOLITAN AREA, May 2006 to May 2007

Houston = 3.3%

Phoenix = 3.7%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Developers won't build what people can't afford or don't want. In places like Houston, more people can afford what they want, and so they buy it and developers build more of it to continue the process. It's a beautiful system we've got here. Places like NYC...well they suck. You have to pay people much higher wages for them to be willing to live there.

Why do you think the state gained so many residents last year? Inquiring minds want to know.

Hmmm, the one city with higher growth than Houston...MUCH stricter design standards! Have you seen Phoenix's zoning ordinance? It's hundreds of pages thick and they govern all the way down to the suitable plantings for residential developments in suburban neighborhoods.

Maricopa County will also pass Harris County by the end of the decade in population. It's already closed the gap from 380,000 to 120,000 in 6 years.

Plus, the cost of living in Phoenix is almost 1/4 more than in Houston. The median income in PHX makes up the difference but its negated some because AZ has income tax.

And since 2000, job growth in Phoenix has been roughly double that of Houston--with housing costing almost 1/3 more and just as much of an endless supply of flat land in the area.

Just to underscore KincaidAlum and Subdude's points--Phoenix is growing faster and is more expensive for people to live and employers to pay their workers--yet they are pickier about development there than here. Those "restrictions" also don't seem to be slowing anything down there, either.

[RedScare]

To be fair, Maricopa County is 9,224 square miles versus Harris County's 1,769 square miles...more than 5 times the land area.

Just to underscore KincaidAlum and Subdude's points--Phoenix is growing faster and is more expensive for people to live and employers to pay their workers--yet they are pickier about development there than here. Those "restrictions" also don't seem to be slowing anything down there, either.

Phoenix is more expensive than here BECAUSE of their strict development standards (among other things), not in spite of them. However, Phoenix may not be that great an example to use. Much of their population growth stems from the fact that it is so much CHEAPER than California, and much of the reason it is cheaper is because they have much fewer regulations than California....proving that all of this is relative.

[TheNiche]

Red made my key points. The big one being that Phoenix has only been growing like it is because of ridiculously regulated Californian cities.

[violet]

To be clear: this garage was financed and owned by a foreign investor who is reportedly the European equivalent of Sam Walton. There is no reason that this garage should be w/o a skin, except that the investor was only looking at the bottom line and will never see nor care about its effects to our city and the neighboring residents. Furthermore, Hines, by report, is embarrassed by this structure....their name is nowhere to be seen on this building, nor is this completed project on its website. There was no venture to beautify this thing in anyway (planters, landscape, etc.). As for the intrusive lights, the developers and investor have turned a blind eye.

[TheNiche]

To be clear: this garage was financed and owned by a foreign investor who is reportedly the European equivalent of Sam Walton. There is no reason that this garage should be w/o a skin, except that the investor was only looking at the bottom line and will never see nor care about its effects to our city and the neighboring residents. Furthermore, Hines, by report, is embarrassed by this structure....their name is nowhere to be seen on this building, nor is this completed project on its website. There was no venture to beautify this thing in anyway (planters, landscape, etc.). As for the intrusive lights, the developers and investor have turned a blind eye.

Something doesn't compute about this. Hines does development, acquisitions, and property management. They are not a construction firm. Why would a foreign investor hire Hines to hire a construction firm to build a parking garage to serve Hines' buildings when that foreign investor could just hire a construction firm himself in the first place and contract out parking to any and all buildings in the downtown area instead of just those owned by Hines? Seems that's what someone interested in bottom dollar would do. I'd fact check your information.

Btw, developers rarely put their name physically on any building because they're likely to sell it at some point in the future, and Hines owns many office buildings and parking garages that serve them throughout Houston and the world. They don't show pictures of parking garages on their website for reasons that I would think are obvious.

[KinkaidAlum]

You want something that you perceive as "better". You are frustrated with the way things are and you apparently want change. As you are not in a position to influence change for instance by changing broad consumer tastes or influencing market forces, it is implicit that you would advocate change via a political route. ...unless I'm wrong and you're just whining without recourse.

My response was a very general one, which addressed the general issue rather than just this one parking garage (as was implied by Jeebus). Kinkaid's absurd response to me was addressing the general tendencies as well. So yes, it appears that we actually are talking about restricting development.

Uh...yeah, you think that there might just on some off chance be a connection between employment growth and construction?

How about we take a second glance at permitting activity, as I brought up in this thread on Friday? Houston tops the nation in terms of housing permits, having issued nearly six times as many housing permits as your beloved Boston.

...I did notice though, that now you're talking about notable development. Allow me to define for you what I think is notable. It is a simple definition. It goes: "When people can afford what they want."

Concur 100%.

I realize that you've been proven wrong again, but is it really that hard to stay on topic? Since when did a displeasure with a multi-story parking garage in downtown have anything to do with job creation and housing permits?

Your claim that tighter regulations on development would stifle all development is lame. It's tired and been played countless times in this city. The only thing tighter regulations would do is give the people some protections from the men (largely) who have raped our landscape with parking garages, strip malls, billboards, and piss-poor urban sprawl with shady lending practices to boot!

[Jeebus]

Hmmm, the one city with higher growth than Houston...MUCH stricter design standards! Have you seen Phoenix's zoning ordinance? It's hundreds of pages thick and they govern all the way down to the suitable plantings for residential developments in suburban neighborhoods.

Maricopa County will also pass Harris County by the end of the decade in population. It's already closed the gap from 380,000 to 120,000 in 6 years.

Plus, the cost of living in Phoenix is almost 1/4 more than in Houston. The median income in PHX makes up the difference but its negated some because AZ has income tax.

And since 2000, job growth in Phoenix has been roughly double that of Houston--with housing costing almost 1/3 more and just as much of an endless supply of flat land in the area.

Just to underscore KincaidAlum and Subdude's points--Phoenix is growing faster and is more expensive for people to live and employers to pay their workers--yet they are pickier about development there than here. Those "restrictions" also don't seem to be slowing anything down there, either.

All I can say about Phoenix is that, compared to Houston, everything was newer - thus giving it a "cleaner" appearance. They have just as many strip-malls and other undesirable architectural turds in that town as we do though.

If it weren't for the good looking women in Scottsdale & Tempe (read: ASU), I'm not sure what that town would have to offer.

[gto250us]

All I can say about Phoenix is that, compared to Houston, everything was newer - thus giving it a "cleaner" appearance. They have just as many strip-malls and other undesirable architectural turds in that town as we do though.

If it weren't for the good looking women in Scottsdale & Tempe (read: ASU), I'm not sure what that town would have to offer.

Phoenix shouldn't even exist. They don't have the resources (read water) to support all those folks but they keep on developing like there is no tomorrow.

[TheNiche]

I realize that you've been proven wrong again, but is it really that hard to stay on topic? Since when did a displeasure with a multi-story parking garage in downtown have anything to do with job creation and housing permits?

Kinkaid, stop embarrassing yourself and read my posts before responding to them. I've already addressed this matter and will not repeat myself.

Your claim that tighter regulations on development would stifle all development is lame. It's tired and been played countless times in this city. The only thing tighter regulations would do is give the people some protections from the men (largely) who have raped our landscape with parking garages, strip malls, billboards, and piss-poor urban sprawl with shady lending practices to boot!

Regulation stifles development in nearly all cases. In other cases, as is typical of many Cities' zoning policies, it merely codifies what would have been done by market forces anyway, creating another layer of government and bureaucracy that does practically nothing. If the cost to build new buildings goes up then developers will pass those costs along to the consumer because if they didn't, then developers wouldn't be able to make any money on a new building. With higher priced buildings, fewer consumers will be willing to pay to use those buildings, and as a result, fewer will be built. With a barrier to entry in place, the market price of those that already exist will increase, making living or doing business more difficult for those in our society that operate on the bare margins. California and New York are a testament to that fact.

...btw, lending practices are enforced at the State and National level and are rarely (if ever) regulated insofar as their influence on land use or architectural design are concerned. Is it really that hard to stay on topic!?

I await your embarrasment for a rebuttal.

[KinkaidAlum]

Unfortunately, I do read your posts. You've taken us on a trip from talking about an ugly parking garage to laundry listing employment growth figures and now to again trying to make the ridiculous claim that regulation stifles development in nearly all cases.

Honestly, you should put down your text books and travel more. The world is filled with cities with much tighter regulatory policies that have much bigger developments that are widely more profitable to the developers than what we see in Houston.

I suspect that your real aversion to regulations would be that it would place a barrier NOT on the poor (since when have you started caring about folks living on the margins of society?) but rather on two-bit developers looking to make a quick buck at the expense of the neighborhoods they are building in (ala the downtown garage). That is your aspiration after all, isn't it?

[TheNiche]

Unfortunately, I do read your posts. You've taken us on a trip from talking about an ugly parking garage to laundry listing employment growth figures and now to again trying to make the ridiculous claim that regulation stifles development in nearly all cases.

Honestly, you should put down your text books and travel more. The world is filled with cities with much tighter regulatory policies that have much bigger developments that are widely more profitable to the developers than what we see in Houston.

I suspect that your real aversion to regulations would be that it would place a barrier NOT on the poor (since when have you started caring about folks living on the margins of society?) but rather on two-bit developers looking to make a quick buck at the expense of the neighborhoods they are building in (ala the downtown garage). That is your aspiration after all, isn't it?

Yes, in fact there are opportunities for developers to make money in cities that are heavily regulated. For instance, you can get local governments, desperate to provide jobs for their weary labor force, actively subsidizing commercial development, then taxing the city's wealthy to cover the bill. But wealth and labor are mobile. Is it any wonder that the sunbelt cities are flourishing? Perhaps you should pick up a textbook, read the Wall Street Journal, glance at some stats from the Census Bureau, or take up a profession in which you interact with developers. That's what I do. ...rather than just spout my mouth off using anecdotal evidence as a justification.

...and even then, you keep on talking about "much bigger developments". I don't care about how notable any one development is because I care about the whole of society rather than having one more expensive phallic symbol in my back yard. What's notable to me is a happy and well-to-do populous. Screw notoriety and screw those that would propogate a political philosophy by which the whole of a people are taxed to fulfill the ego of a few.

Btw, my aspiration is to build neighborhoods that people are willing to pay me lots of money to live in because they want to live there. That's how it works. Any developer that truely builds something at the expense of a neighborhood is either doing superficial harm that will be recouped by having added to its vitality in other ways...or is on the cusp of losing his shirt out of incompetence.

Edited August 1, 2007 by TheNiche

[The Great Hizzy!]

I don't want to get to deep into this (and FTR, I'm of the camp that thinks this is more a subjective argument than anything else regarding the parking garage), but regulation in the case of development is at least restrictive in nature. By definiton, you are at least setting guidelines as to what's allowable, doable and feasible, thus for some, there's a restrictive nature, a potential limiter or constrictor of whatever it is that they might want to do.

Restriction doesn't necessarily equate to elimination or repulsion, however. It just suggests that some may want to temper their ideals or their philosophy in order to get into a particular market or sub-market.

[Jax]

I walked by the garage on Monday on the way to the Angelika, and I thought I saw a sign that said the garage closes at 10 pm. If that is the case, couldn't they just turn off the lights after 10? Or do they leave them on all night? Could I have possibly misread the sign?