Heights 26th: Multifamily With Retail At 724 West 27th St.

[004n063]

On 9/13/2023 at 10:54 PM, august948 said:

How much urbanity do you really need?

Oooh I love this question! All day-to-day needs and robust, frequent transit within a safe and comfortable five-minute walk. 

[strickn]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:30 PM, s3mh said:

Appreciate the density and not going to even argue that the Shep/Durham corridor should have architecture that respects the Height's historic styles.  The ship has long sailed on that part of the Heights.  

But wow.  This is what I would call the "We are just not even trying" period of architecture.  My middle school aged kids do more interesting things on Minecraft (and I am not sure whether this design is or is not poached from something a middle school kid did on Minecraft).  

Hopefully, this is just a very early back of the napkin kind of rendering and the actual design will be better.  But so far, what is this style supposed to be?  Neo-soviet?  Post-modern industrial Victorian farmhouse?

It's driven by having windows on only one side of your apartment, like a motel room.  The rest is just window dressing.

Houston is too nice a place to waste living in places like this, so I wish we wouldn't build them

OTOH the target demographic probably spends most of their week in an office... so they'll be missing out for the most part in any event

Maybe its style is to remind them of their Excel spreadsheet 

[Texasota]

Part of what makes it look a little strange is that half of the apparent fenestration isn't actually windows. Every apartment has their own balcony tucked inside the primary facade. 

This helps make the building look weirdly under-detailed in the renderings, but I think it will look much better in real life because you will be able to perceive more of that depth.

It's also just great to see. Every apartment has its own private outdoor space. Not a lot, but enough to have a little garden and sit outside in the morning/evening. My one issue is with the fact that all four facades are handled the same way - that inset shaded depth is great for the south side but not so much for the north.

[august948]

On 9/15/2023 at 7:12 AM, 004n063 said:

Oooh I love this question! All day-to-day needs and robust, frequent transit within a safe and comfortable five-minute walk. 

So just a few square blocks then.  Good to know.

[004n063]

2 hours ago, august948 said:

So just a few square blocks then.  Good to know.

Yes, basic daily needs and quality transit connections for every few square blocks. Obviously, a much higher density than general Houston's 3k/sq mi is needed for this to be feasible, but it doesn't take a Hong Kong or Manhattan level. Plenty of examples around the world of cities that feel very moderate in density but have multiple businesses on every block. Am I optimistic about Houston's prospects for turning into a Berlin or even a Valencia or an Utrecht? No. But you asked how much urbanism I wanted. That's how much.

[__nevii]

On 9/13/2023 at 10:54 PM, august948 said:

Considering that the land area inside the Beltway is almost 500 square miles, I think we'll be fine.  How much urbanity do you really need?

As @004n063 alludes to, the "15 minute city" is the ideal: all the needs, especially basic ones, within close access. It isn't just simply a matter of desire insomuch as it would provide demonstrable benefit/access compared to the current sprawling regime: for instance, mitigation of commute distance, food deserts, infrastructure upkeep for the given population, etc.

Since dense urbanity takes less space than corresponding population suburban sprawl, it wouldn't necessarily lead to the full using up of 500sq miles Beltway. For instance, stuff like Ghandi District, Chinatown, Space Center that is currently more spread apart can effectively "concentrate closer" as they shift into the denser contructs (just like how the Houston Maritime Museum moved from it's old location into the new East River development), Meanwhile, the excess land freed up can be dedicated for greenbelts, parks, resevoirs, etc.

[august948]

9 hours ago, __nevii said:

As @004n063 alludes to, the "15 minute city" is the ideal: all the needs, especially basic ones, within close access. It isn't just simply a matter of desire insomuch as it would provide demonstrable benefit/access compared to the current sprawling regime: for instance, mitigation of commute distance, food deserts, infrastructure upkeep for the given population, etc.

Since dense urbanity takes less space than corresponding population suburban sprawl, it wouldn't necessarily lead to the full using up of 500sq miles Beltway. For instance, stuff like Ghandi District, Chinatown, Space Center that is currently more spread apart can effectively "concentrate closer" as they shift into the denser contructs (just like how the Houston Maritime Museum moved from it's old location into the new East River development), Meanwhile, the excess land freed up can be dedicated for greenbelts, parks, resevoirs, etc.

You'll get pockets of that in Houston, to be sure, but the city overall is never going to be remade this way.  To have a city like that you need to build from the ground up, either from scratch or starting in a prior era where walking was the norm.  And you need geographical or hard political boundaries to enforce the density.  Neither of those apply here.

[__nevii]

On 9/18/2023 at 12:21 PM, august948 said:

You'll get pockets of that in Houston, to be sure, but the city overall is never going to be remade this way.  To have a city like that you need to build from the ground up, either from scratch or starting in a prior era where walking was the norm.  And you need geographical or hard political boundaries to enforce the density.  Neither of those apply here.

Not necessarily. Retrofits, rebuilds, etc happen: for instance, just as larger lot older homes are being demolished in favor of multiple, smaller lot townhomes, the buildings of the city with more parking (either surface lot or garages) can gradually get replaced/infilled with denser, walkable builds.

A lot of what is preventing the walkable builds today is not time-period/automobile adoption in/of itself ... rather, it's the codification of such lifestyle in local, state, and federal levels. The local stuff is dealt with regarding changes to parking minimums, lot sizes, setbacks, FARs, etc (not to mention road-widths, which apply to the greenfield stuff that you allude to): that takes care of the development within the city limits.

Meanwhile, the state (TXDOT) and federal stuff are what contribute to the suburban development outside the city across the metro: the "low prices" of suburban homes per sqft are heavily subsidized by both those governmental levels, the homes would be more expensive if they bore the full cost (i.e. sewer lines, electrical lines, and other such infrastructure emanating from central city). Changes at those levels would bring about the most significant change in terms of the metro as a whole (and not just the city): as it stands, the central city obviously can sitll infill/grow, there just also will be growth in the burbs too.

 

[hindesky]

[HNathoo]

8 hours ago, hindesky said:

Looks like some serious ant problems here

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

Signs for "Property Commerce" on both N. Shepherd and N. Durham St.

https://propertycommerce.com

https://propertycommerce.com/wp-content/uploads/Heights-Target.pdf

[hindesky]

N. Shepherd street improvements haven't started by this yet, materials staged.