largeTEXAS Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 Personally, as long as the ground floor is well-designed and active (with retail, where appropriate), the amount of floors and even design of the building is somewhat secondary. That said, we need many more residents downtown, so the more floors in each development the better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I'm not NOT okay with them, but it's kinda disappointing to see all these 50-60story (and supertalls) in other cities around the nation while the best we can get is these little stumps. All in the name of growth, I guess. I too would love to see a 60+ story condo tower go up in Houston (specifically downtown Houston). But let's not exaggerate the number of 50-60 story residential buildings around the nation (let alone supertalls). Outside of NYC, Chicago and Miami, there really are very few (and outside of NYC and Chicago I don't think there are any supertall residentials). Yes, Austin has one. But only one. Yes, Charlotte has one. But only one (and it barely makes the cut, being only 50 stories.) Here is a complete (I think) list of US Metro areas that have one or more 50+ story residential buildings (many are buildings that only include residential along with other uses, e.g., hotel):NYCChicagoMiamiLA (one, 54 stories and it's primarily hotel.)San Francisco (2)Atlanta (1, hotel with condos)Las Vegas (4)Austin (1)Charlotte (1) A little more high-rise residential context in connection with the comparisons to Austin and Charlotte: Austin has 13 high-rise residentials (roughly 15+ stories or 180+ feet)Charlotte has 6Houston has 53 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 But what does better mean? Why is it better? What benefit does the additional height provide? Is it just its impact on the skyline? I'm honestly curious because I would, personally, genuinely prefer two twenties to one 50. By far. I think 50s can end up being too out of scale when not very well designed. Yeah, I would rather have more shorter towers, at least for residential uses. Costs increase drastically with building height, so that the taller the building the more average units are going to cost. At this point in downtown residential development, I think going short and appealing to a wider audience is a more sensible strategy than pricing a lot of people out of the market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Let's pretend this building was going up without the incentives. How much would the units actually cost? That ugly tower by whiteco on westheimer... Their 550sqft studios go for $1,700. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 They are saving $4,710,000 with the incentive. (314 units x $15,000). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I'm indifferent as to what I like more. There are 20 story towers I like at that height, and there are 50 story towers I like at that height. Either way, I love the infill that's going on downtown of all sorts. Retail will likely flourish when most of these residential mid and high rises are finished. Thanks for that research, Houston19514. I think soon enough we'll be on that list ourselves. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) But what does better mean? Why is it better? What benefit does the additional height provide? Is it just its impact on the skyline? I'm honestly curious because I would, personally, genuinely prefer two twenties to one 50. By far. I think 50s can end up being too out of scale when not very well designed.They also absorb more than twice the market share of 20's, so that more people are bottled in the same building, deadening neighborhood life. All else being equal, I believe (can't prove) that two 20's and a 10 produces more people walking around on the street than one 50 will, and the difference is greater the less surrounding buildings there are.That said I think a 50 at some point would be good simply for the prestige and the advertisement it makes for the area. Edited April 25, 2014 by H-Town Man 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Y'all sound like a bunch of fishermen. 39 story downtown development? Too small, throw it back... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 They are saving $4,710,000 with the incentive. (314 units x $15,000).Please correct me if I am wrong.....The incentive is paid over 15 years I thought. If I am correct, and I might very well be wrong, the time value of money would make the incentive less than half that.If I am correct, I also wonder how that 15-year period is effecting the development of rental buildings vs. condos. If a developer built condos and sold them all, I am curious as to what mechanism he would use to preserve the incentives come to him when he is not the property owner any more.All that said, it is very likely that I have this muddled up. Please correct me if I am wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Y'all sound like a bunch of fishermen. 39 story downtown development? Too small, throw it back...I think most of us are arguing that shorter buildings are better. Did you read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think most of us are arguing that shorter buildings are better. Did you read? I dont think shorter is better. But, then again, I dont think taller is better either. It needs to be taken in context. I believe things should grow organically - so these 21 story buildings are the tallest we could honestly expect in the SE area of downtown. If done well, these can be a really solid foundation for additional growth in the area. I am confident that we will see taller buildings to come - which makes sense - when there are less lots available to build. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 For me it is all time and place. In a downtown filled with 40+ towers and running out of land then a 60+ building would be preferable for me. (HOUSTON IN 10 years)In a downtown with a lot of tall buildings but a lot of empty lots then either would be good to me. (HOUSTON the past 40 Years).In a downtown with very few tall buildings and lots of room to grow then a single tall building might be less preferable than multiple 20 floor buildings. (Houston 100 years ago).that's just me. I would gladly take 20 buildings in midtown that are 10 floors than 1 burg khalifa that is 200 floors. It creates a wonderful urban environment without all these empty plots. In downtown however, I would probably go for two 100 floor buildings over one 200 floor buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Except even those aren't terribly realistic heights. We're getting 5-7 story buildings in Midtown, not 10, and 5-50 stories downtown including office buildings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ...I also wonder how that 15-year period is effecting the development of rental buildings vs. condos. I don't think it's much of an effect at all. My perception is that condos are more difficult to finance because of significant pre sale requirements by the lenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Except even those aren't terribly realistic heights.We're getting 5-7 story buildings in Midtown, not 10, and 5-50 stories downtown including office buildings.They are most realistic. I prefer what is going on in midtown now than having some gigantic tower. What's not realistic about that? There have been tower proposals for midtown but I prefer it current direction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think most of us are arguing that shorter buildings are better. Did you read? It was a joke and yes, I do find it funny that development of a 39 story residential high rise in downtown has turned into "that's nice, but we would rather have"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think my "argument" point is missed - probably because I didn't sell it very well at all. My point was "Typically a 50 floor building will be a better designed structure than a 20 floor building; so speaking purely from an architectural standpoint I would rather see the better design." Now, we all know there are plenty of rather dull (or just plain bad) tall buildings and there are some generously designed smaller ones so it isn't a universal truth that taller = better architecture. Normally though the greater the expense of the building the greater the emphasis on design from the developers/clients. Normally. I don't care what height any new residential towers are in Downtown. I just want the critical mass. I want vibrant streets. That means more residential. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I think my "argument" point is missed - probably because I didn't sell it very well at all. My point was "Typically a 50 floor building will be a better designed structure than a 20 floor building; so speaking purely from an architectural standpoint I would rather see the better design." Now, we all know there are plenty of rather dull (or just plain bad) tall buildings and there are some generously designed smaller ones so it isn't a universal truth that taller = better architecture. Normally though the greater the expense of the building the greater the emphasis on design from the developers/clients. Normally. I don't care what height any new residential towers are in Downtown. I just want the critical mass. I want vibrant streets. That means more residential.Good point. 3615 Montrose and The Flats on Fairview are both beautiful designs and I would have no issue at all with multiple "small" buildings on this scale if it means building up Houston's core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 They also absorb more than twice the market share of 20's, so that more people are bottled in the same building, deadening neighborhood life. All else being equal, I believe (can't prove) that two 20's and a 10 produces more people walking around on the street than one 50 will, and the difference is greater the less surrounding buildings there are.That said I think a 50 at some point would be good simply for the prestige and the advertisement it makes for the area. Why would two 20's and a 10 produce more people walking around on the street than one 50? I guess it might disperse the same number of people over an additional two blocks, so to that extent a minor +, but still the same number of people walking around on the street, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Taller buildings tend to require higher rents to make up additional costs, and they tend to have somewhat larger apartments partially as a result. Plus there are requirements for additional elvators, mech etc.Not guaranteed of course, but lower apartment buildings often have more units per floor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 It was a joke and yes, I do find it funny that development of a 39 story residential high rise in downtown has turned into "that's nice, but we would rather have"... I don't think it's turned into that. I think we're all pretty excited about this building. And... I don't think you're reading the posts very well. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Why would two 20's and a 10 produce more people walking around on the street than one 50? I guess it might disperse the same number of people over an additional two blocks, so to that extent a minor +, but still the same number of people walking around on the street, no? This is a theory - like I said, can't prove it. But, I think in shorter buildings you tend to have clients who are more sold on the neighborhood and more interested in walking around it. Whereas in taller buildings, at least on the upper floors, you tend to have clients who want the view, want to sort of be aloof from the world, and aren't so interested in the neighborhood. Also, I said before that I think the difference is greater the less existing buildings there are around. So, if three short buildings are built in an area where there's no buildings already (like southeast downtown), the people are more likely to walk around because there's other buildings. The place feels more settled and there's more to look at on a walk. Whereas if it's just one tall building standing alone in a concrete moonscape, people are less likely to venture out into no-man's land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I don't care how tall they are. I just hate the thought of having residential areas downtown with nowhere for people to walk to, without retail on the first floor. I just think about places like Manhattan where every block are shops and restaurants bookstores cleaners. I know everyone gets tired of hearing about ground floor retail, but if it is not planned in the design in the first place they wont be able to put it in later and then everyone will still go to the garage and drive somewhere for conveniences that should be located within walking distance. Thats how you build up a sense of community. If we really want downtown to work were going top have to get people who live and work on the sidewalks. Now I'll get off my soapbox.One last question who owns the parking lot right across from bank of the Southwest (the Block)? Why isn't someone planning a tower there. Its the logical spot for a super tall and it would be the icing on the cake. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arche_757 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 In regards to a Supertall... I really think the best place for one would be where 2-3 additional blocks are empty, and not one surrounded by other buildings. So that would mean some place over near 800 Bell or the "Chevron Campus" - In my opinion. I do agree, these residential buildings need to have some idea for even a small bit of retail. That will help to drive additional development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fkp5 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I agree with bobruss that the Bank of the Southwest lot would be perfect for a Supertall in my opinion. It's right in the middle of our skyline. A Supertall around 800 Bell would skew our skyline a little. But you're right arche, if a developer wants to build multiple buildings along with a Supertall, then the three open lots around 800 Bell would probably be the best spot. Also, do we know yet if this 39-story building will have any ground floor retail? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Temporarily closed off? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonenadazilch Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I don't care what height any new residential towers are in Downtown. I just want the critical mass. I want vibrant streets. That means more residential.Greatest soon-to-be retail need? A grocery store has to find its way near a cluster of all these new developments.Unless momentum grows for a residential district that purposely rejects subterranean activity, the popularity & usage of the tunnel system might always limit how vibrant the street scene becomes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstontexasjack Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Greatest soon-to-be retail need? A grocery store has to find its way near a cluster of all these new developments.Unless momentum grows for a residential district that purposely rejects subterranean activity, the popularity & usage of the tunnel system might always limit how vibrant the street scene becomes. I agree. At some point, it would be very nice to see a 1-2 story H-E-B in the base of one of these new residential developments. I'd like to see the City put up some tax incentives to help that along (mainly just because I want to see it sooner). Call it the "Downtown Market" or something along those lines to be branded with the Buffalo and Montrose Markets. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Greatest soon-to-be retail need? A grocery store has to find its way near a cluster of all these new developments.Unless momentum grows for a residential district that purposely rejects subterranean activity, the popularity & usage of the tunnel system might always limit how vibrant the street scene becomes. By and large, these new residential developments will not be connected to the tunnel system. The 39 story tower that is the subject of this thread may be a rare exception (I say it may be a rare exception because it is not certain that this building will be connected to the tunnel system.) Of the other residential developments in the works, the only one I can think of that might be connected to the tunnels is the old Texaco building. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Greatest soon-to-be retail need? A grocery store has to find its way near a cluster of all these new developments.Unless momentum grows for a residential district that purposely rejects subterranean activity, the popularity & usage of the tunnel system might always limit how vibrant the street scene becomes.The tunnel system essentially closes at 5pm and serves one main purpose - to service daytime office workers. In addition, tunnel connections are extremely costly - like $30-$40M to install. No multifamily developer will incur that sort of cost.Retail follows rooftops. Easy as that. As more people move into downtown retail will follow. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.