Chicago's downtown is a realistic goal for Houston, right? (Dallas: real estate, apartment)

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by jek74

Houston was podunk town until the 1990's. The reason they lost their football team in the 90's was they didn't have the population or the money to even support an NFL franchise

Houston's population in 1980 was 1.5 million ( http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/De...h_hist_pop.pdf )

City with NFL teams and their current population (city proper):
Nashville - .6 million
Baltimore - .6 million
Cincinnati - .3 million
Green Bay - .1 million
Seattle - .6 million

BTW, why doesn't LA have an NFL franchise? Is it the lack of population or money?

[crono_clone]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

What I also know is that our city is trying to densify. All I'm saying is that I would like to see it done in a way that expands our downtown, brings more life into the district, cultivates the architectural landscape, and have it done in a way that takes advantage of the large grid we already have in the core.

It's probably a question of whether they'd be allowed to expand our downtown. It's pretty surrounded, and I'm not just talking the freeway ring. Midtown, the Museum District, the Washington Corridor, River Oaks, and Montrose are all in the western vicinity and I don't know if they'd be willing to be swallowed up.

Perhaps it could expand east or north, but I don't remember if those places are flood-prone, which might be a reason why they never developed that far.

I'd honestly like to see downtown link up with Greenway Plaza and eventually with Uptown to form one continuous skyline, but like I said, you'd be swallowing up a lot of neighborhoods along the way.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by crono_clone

It's probably a question of whether they'd be allowed to expand our downtown. It's pretty surrounded, and I'm not just talking the freeway ring. Midtown, the Museum District, the Washington Corridor, River Oaks, and Montrose are all in the western vicinity and I don't know if they'd be willing to be swallowed up.

Perhaps it could expand east or north, but I don't remember if those places are flood-prone, which might be a reason why they never developed that far.

I'd honestly like to see downtown link up with Greenway Plaza and eventually with Uptown to form one continuous skyline, but like I said, you'd be swallowing up a lot of neighborhoods along the way.

Well, I'd like the development to incorporate those neighborhoods and give them a more seamless transition into the actual CBD. Midtown would still be Midtown, though, and Museum District would still be the Museum District; just more built up.

[jek74]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Houston's population in 1980 was 1.5 million ( http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/De...h_hist_pop.pdf )

City with NFL teams and their current population (city proper):
Nashville - .6 million
Baltimore - .6 million
Cincinnati - .3 million
Green Bay - .1 million
Seattle - .6 million

BTW, why doesn't LA have an NFL franchise? Is it the lack of population or money?

Fair enough, I should have been more specific. All those cities listed sans Green Bay are FAR more industrious with their population. And far more affluent with their fan base. LA is a unique situation. They have never been able to truly support an NFL team. The Rams were a disaster as were the Raiders. A combination of a lot of factors that would be off topic for this thread. But regarding the other cities, especially Nashville, since that is where the Oilers moved to, Nashville was on the uptick, fast growing population, lots of jobs and strong college football base.

I'm from St. Louis, and we lost the Rams around the same time Houston lost the Oilers and it was the same reason. Phoenix at the time was thriving and growing, St. Louis was dying. St. Louis had a large population but it was not affluent and it was far from industrious. It's the same reason the owner of Jacksonville's team is threatening to leave as well.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by jek74

Fair enough, I should have been more specific. All those cities listed sans Green Bay are FAR more industrious with their population. And far more affluent with their fan base. LA is a unique situation. They have never been able to truly support an NFL team. The Rams were a disaster as were the Raiders. A combination of a lot of factors that would be off topic for this thread. But regarding the other cities, especially Nashville, since that is where the Oilers moved to, Nashville was on the uptick, fast growing population, lots of jobs and strong college football base.

I'm from St. Louis, and we lost the Rams around the same time Houston lost the Oilers and it was the same reason. Phoenix at the time was thriving and growing, St. Louis was dying. St. Louis had a large population but it was not affluent and it was far from industrious. It's the same reason the owner of Jacksonville's team is threatening to leave as well.

The reason why the Oilers moved is because Bud Adams wanted a new stadium, and Houston wouldn't give him one.

If you think that a city is industrious and affluent by agreeing to the demands of a NFL owner, well.......

[jek74]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

The reason why the Oilers moved is because Bud Adams wanted a new stadium, and Houston wouldn't give him one.

If you think that a city is industrious and affluent by agreeing to the demands of a NFL owner, well.......

That is exactly why Bill Bidwell took the Cardinals out of St. Louis. And why do you think both cities refused to build a new stadium? I'll give you a hint, neither city could afford it.

[binkyman]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Well, I'd like the development to incorporate those neighborhoods and give them a more seamless transition into the actual CBD. Midtown would still be Midtown, though, and Museum District would still be the Museum District; just more built up.

Chicago just doesn't quit. I was looking at google and I swear downtown Houston would fit in a little corner of the massive area comprising downtown Chicago today. I was reading that downtown Chicago has about 121 million square feet of office space to Houston's 37 million. That means downtown Chicago has over three times and about 84 million square feet more of office space than downtown Houston.

Okay, let's say that downtown Houston grows on average at about 10 million square feet every twenty years, that would mean it will take 160 years for downtown Houston to equal downtown Chicago.

In the pictures posted of downtown Houston and downtown Chicago, it was obvious from my point of view that the latter looked about six times larger than the first.

If I have learned anything from this thread, it is that the downtown areas within the state of Texas are rather pathetic. No wonder we compare and contrast Houston to Dallas. They both look rather putrid compared to most everything outside of the state.

[Oildog]

Originally Posted by jek74

That is exactly why Bill Bidwell took the Cardinals out of St. Louis. And why do you think both cities refused to build a new stadium? I'll give you a hint, neither city could afford it.

Not really. Not many cities can really 'afford it'. But if they use tax dollars to fund it, you need voter approval. Houston felt it still had a viable place to play and had just spent a bunch of money for remodeling it. They decided against giving money to an owner who developed quite a negative image in the area. While another city was courting the exposure the NFL would bring it.

[jek74]

Originally Posted by binkyman

Chicago just doesn't quit. I was looking at google and I swear downtown Houston would fit in a little corner of the massive area comprising downtown Chicago today. I was reading that downtown Chicago has about 121 million square feet of office space to Houston's 37 million. That means downtown Chicago has over three times and about 84 million square feet more of office space than downtown Houston.

Okay, let's say that downtown Houston grows on average at about 10 million square feet every twenty years, that would mean it will take 160 years for downtown Houston to equal downtown Chicago.

In the pictures posted of downtown Houston and downtown Chicago, it was obvious from my point of view that the latter looked about six times larger than the first.

If I have learned anything from this thread, it is that the downtown areas within the state of Texas are rather pathetic. No wonder we compare and contrast Houston to Dallas. They both look rather putrid compared to most everything outside of the state.

Chicago's office vacancy rate is 50% higher then Houston's as well. I guess we could just build more space and leave it empty.

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by binkyman

Chicago just doesn't quit. I was looking at google and I swear downtown Houston would fit in a little corner of the massive area comprising downtown Chicago today. I was reading that downtown Chicago has about 121 million square feet of office space to Houston's 37 million. That means downtown Chicago has over three times and about 84 million square feet more of office space than downtown Houston.

Okay, let's say that downtown Houston grows on average at about 10 million square feet every twenty years, that would mean it will take 160 years for downtown Houston to equal downtown Chicago.

In the pictures posted of downtown Houston and downtown Chicago, it was obvious from my point of view that the latter looked about six times larger than the first.

I never explicitly stated that I wished for our downtown to be as large as Chicago. In fact, in another post, I say otherwise

If I have learned anything from this thread, it is that the downtown areas within the state of Texas are rather pathetic. No wonder we compare and contrast Houston to Dallas. They both look rather putrid compared to most everything outside of the state.

Clearly, what we've been discussing for the past few pages is how we can improve it. With that said, do you have something of substance to contribute to the discussion, or are you just here to be the usual annoyance?