Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713
That's also how you create an oversupply (see Dallas or Atlanta's Downtown). In Houston, things are built more by demand instead of just speculation. Plus, why not keep some of those old buildings/warehouses and renovate them? Just look to the East End (called "EaDo" now). But I mean, did you go to the east side of Downtown and not see all of the redevelopment? There are two buildings under construction around Discovery Green Park, and another that was just recently completed. Both took away surface lots. I'd rather see the surface parking lots disappear before seeing abandoned buildings disappear (when they can be renovated instead).
Just my opinion.
Just depends though, some buildings aren't in any position to be renovated, because they are literally falling apart. I am quite impressed with the development that's taking place in downtown.
Point being, we have more room in downtown to redevelop and expand when time comes.
And yes, I certainly agree, Houston benefits from going off of demand rather than speculation, it's what's keeping our city out of a financial crisis, like the Miami right now. Miami overbuilt, way more than demand. Their ideals were that they could build more buildings, people will instantly move into the luxurious towers in it's redefined skyline.
I guess they over did it.
They're expanding Downtown right now though. MainPlace is reaching its top out, and the East side of Downtown is really starting to pick up in activity. It's quite nice actually. Once the economy picks back up, I can see the other convention center hotel going under construction (directly across from the Hilton).
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarface713
They're expanding Downtown right now though. MainPlace is reaching its top out, and the East side of Downtown is really starting to pick up in activity. It's quite nice actually. Once the economy picks back up, I can see the other convention center hotel going under construction (directly across from the Hilton).
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Agree on the lack of scientific data - I think they are all on preferance - i like Philly, and many others
example at night the view of LA from sunset strip can be breath taking
Atlanta, Houston and Dallas demonstrate their height in a more prounonced way due to a lack of or lessor density which is very cool in it's own right - in many ways you can argue the height is not diminished by density and can be very profound
My personal favorite Chicago does both density and height very well; in my opinion even better NYC which from a pure desnity perspective is unmatched
All are very cool - I love skylines in general
You basically summed up my viewpoints for American skylines with that line (Bold), I also enjoy Chicago's skyline the best in America.
Yeah, all the Northeast Cities are just lucky that Houston doesn't have one single, unified skyline, because if it did, there would be no question for 3rd most impressive skyline in the nation.
It would be like a taller version of San Francisco, with more buildings just minus the awesome backdrop. Just imagine DT Houston with the addition of 17 buildings over 400 feet and 52 buildings over 200 ft, that currently are outside the CBD. Houston has the buildings for the density to compete with even northern cities, it just isnt concentrated into one skyline.
I mean the 142nd tallest building in Houston is 201 ft tall. At the exact same height of 201 ft, that would be Philadelphia's 117th tallest building.
Oh how the world would be turned upside down for the many northeners to know that, had Houston developed a singular skyline, like its norther counterparts, that it would have the archictecture, density, vibrancy, not to mention height to rival them, Houston would be in a tier of its own, ahead of the San Fransicos and Seattles of the nation, but just behind NYC and Chicago.
Yes, on paper, Houston does indeed kill Philly, but in the real world, Philly gets the advantage by having 1 skyline, whereas Houston has had the setback by developing 3 seperate skylines.
That might be the problem with Houston, if only you southerners learned about density.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkhyperchaos
That might be the problem with Houston, if only you southerners learned about density.
You know, I'm sure others have seen me post the contents of this post many times before, but we live in Texas, our state has a total land area of 268,820 Square Miles, our city has a total land area of 601 Square Miles, our metro has a total land area of 10,000 square miles. Please, try to cope with the figures. We're naturally bound to sprawl. We live in a state that is VERY RICH in land. Unlike Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, or the area where NYC is located in lower New York State, we in Texas have a vast amount of land to develop. Please try to understand that, sprawl is not a bad thing here in Texas.
You know, I'm sure others have seen me post the contents of this post many times before, but we live in Texas, our state has a total land area of 268,820 Square Miles, our city has a total land area of 601 Square Miles, our metro has a total land area of 10,000 square miles. Please, try to cope with the figures. We're naturally bound to sprawl. We live in a state that is VERY RICH in land. Unlike Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, or the area where NYC is located in lower New York State, we in Texas have a vast amount of land to develop. Please try to understand that, sprawl is not a bad thing here in Texas.
Thank you very much!
I'm not saying geographically Texas is a good place for density, or even that sprawl isn't natural. I'm just saying that Houston isn't dense, it doesn't matter the reason, it's not dense.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkhyperchaos
I'm not saying geographically Texas is a good place for density, or even that sprawl isn't natural. I'm just saying that Houston isn't dense, it doesn't matter the reason, it's not dense.
That's the same as me saying Philadelphia isn't large by land area. Things that neither city/region can control. lol
Density works in the northeast and Midwest, but aside from Miami it doesn't really have a reason to exist in the South. Miami is only 38 Square Miles, it needs to be dense and tall to house more people within city limits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TMC, and CBD of Houston
