Agree 10000000%. Horrible. Unimaginative. Ugly. "Also Sprach Zarathustra" begins playing in my head when I see those pictures. I seriously hope this doesn't get built. As was stated earlier, whatever gets built on that site should be of similar height to Union Station
Are you sure you want to live there? That whole area seems pretty deserted to me surrounded by nothing but empty lots and homeless people. When there is no ball game in the area, there is no incentive to live in that area. That building sure does stick out like an eye-sore.
As always I concur with DD. I think it's perfect. It is also exactly what the downtown revitaliztion project is all about.
I'm fine with it. It will be my mission to take residence in the Ballpark Place Tower upon my youngest child's trip to college! Woo hoo!!!
First off, outside of the fact that when I move back to Houston this might very well be my place of residence, I am in no way shape or form connected to the Ballpark Place project.... And as many people here know already, I just usually come equipped with a wealth of knowledge on some of the dumbest sh*t around....i.e. team logo's, sports venue's, etc..... For one, a "sore thumb" usually doesn’t have an exterior that looks this good. As someone said earlier, the Tower has an exterior that makes it look like its part of the ballpark itself. So how on earth could it stick out, especailly amongst a backdrop of being surrounded be even taller structures? Sorry.....I'm just not seeing your point here. And as for the "sore thumb"........wrong building. Try looking one block over to the south, the block directly across from Union Station. That you see sitting on that block is the yet-to-be developed or revitalized 90-year old Ben Milam Building, a true definition of something sticking out like an "eye sore" or a "sore thumb".......that is until that building it redeveloped and is in much better condition. The WTC across Texas Ave used to be in that same category as well, that was until Tillman Fertita came in to save the day and turn the place into the swanky Ballpark Inn. In fact, before Fertita arrived, the city thought it was such an "eye sore," they wanted to tear it down and replace it with a park to honor the Port Authority. Those are true examples of "eye sores," something Ballpark Place is far from being........ The best way to address the whole view issue is to view a pic of Pittsburgh's PNC Park, who has high rises built just across the river from the ballpark. The river separating the ballpark form the downtown high rises isn’t that wide, only probably a mere city block away from the ballpark. One might think having 30-40 story high rises this close to a ballpark might give an "in-your-face" view form your seats. But in reality, having these clusters of high rises so close to there ballpark has helped PNC Park probably sport the best downtown view in all of baseball. If Ballpark Place were literally by itself with no other buildings in view or sight from any direction (meaning no downtown view at all), then I could see your point about it sticking out. But combined with Houston's incredibly beautiful and dominating skyline, why cant Ballpark Place deliver the same results? It doesnt block this impressive view, it just adds to it. I agree with you Nick totally........there has been development around that ballpark, but not much. However, as many of you can tell, I am a fan of this project. Why? Because it will dramatically help bring the development we imagined surrounding the ballpark to reality. Lofts and the people they attract have helped played a pivotal role in downtown's revitalization, no one can doubt that. In Downtown Houston, I have yet to come across a Loft Project that has failed. Every single one of them has succeeded. And tons of retail and restaurant development usually accompanies these projects soon after. Look at what all of these Loft projects like the Rice Lofts have done for north Downtown so far. That area used to have literally no life at all, outside of the usual activity at the court complex. Now the downtown area has life and hope for a bright future that will probably become a reality. There success is also the primary reason why more Lofts are being built in downtown, just like Ballpark Place and the soon-to-be-constructed 32 story Shamrock Tower across the street from the Rice Lofts. (Where a McDonald's currently sits at the corner of Main and Texas) Like every other Loft project in downtown, I expect Ballpark Place to succeed with flying colors. And when it does succeed, owners of other nearby blocks will either feel compelled to construct development or sell their plots to the highest bidder for development. In either case, the predictable success of Ballpark Place will soon be accompanied by a wealth of new retail and restaurant/bar development. All of this will help revitalize the area around the ballpark to the likes of what we have imagined and dreamed of, thus giving Houston its own "Wrigelyville," Texas style.......
I'm not arguing the aesthetic quality of the building itself, it's just the scale of it that is off-putting to me, and I don't seem to be the only one around here with that opinion. How does it stick out, you ask? Try the fact that it's 30-freakin' stories high. Knock 10 off of that thing and I probably wouldn't have any problem with it. And regarding the picture of PNC Park, no one building in that view dominates the landscape the way this building will. Obviously, we have a difference of opinion here and neither of us will convince the other to change, and that's fine. And it's funny that you bring up that other building. After the game this past Saturday night, my sister-in-law asked if that building is abandoned. I pointed out that there were sheets in some of the windows, so apparently the crack whores are still using it. BTW, that McDonald's does not exist anymore. A buddy of mine lives across the street from there and he said they came and tore it down and cleared it out in about 2 days.
I'm beginning to think the whole 'stadiums are an engine for development' thing is a myth. Not only did none of the promised development ever appear around Reunion Arena, we're ten years into the massive land grab in Arlington and none of the promised new development has even broken ground. The entire "Victory" project around the American Airlines Center has yet to start even though they've gotten tens of millions of dollars in incentives (and managed to hold up the city for more money after the fact).
Agreed... its weird. It seems like the more cities actually "plan" for the development around the ballparks, the less it happens. Whereas, in cases like Dever and Cleveland, there is no master plan developments... but things still get built. In the case of Houston, I'm not totally ruling out development... I'm just frustrated that its taking so long. It will eventually happen, and you will see several high-rises across the street next to ballpark place (so it doesn't stick out like a "sore thumb"... ... and looks more like PNC park), but this will take at least another 10 years. Its also funny that you mention Dallas, because every single stadium development plan that's been proposed in other cities, has made it a point to say, "Look at how Dallas promised all this development, and nothing has happened... we don't want that." St. Louis is the latest culprit in promising a new urban landscape next to the ballpark (see tigereye's earlier post), and the cardinals are on the books for a huge lawsuit if those buildings never get developed. We'll see how it goes, but so far... if you don't have entrepreneuers willing to take a chance (like Tillman), the development around new stadiums isn't going to 'magically' happen.
isn't the problem that utterly worthless land now all of a sudden has a huge spike, once ground is broken on a new stadium? it seems it takes some time to settle down the land values before you can get investors to say, "ok...now's the time to buy." you gotta sell a lot of cheeseteaks and beer to make up for super-high land values and rents.
Well, part of the problem with the American Airlines Center and the Ballpark in Arlington is that the team owners got extra land beyond what was required for the stadium all the while promising they would build all sorts of development on it and then never followed through with that. Dallas gave away tens of acres of downtown land beyond what was necessary to build the AAC. Ross Perot, Jr and Tom Hicks had all these beautiful renderings and drawings showing all they were going to do with the land. They got lots of extra money to get this development going.... and then once the arena was built, they went back to the city and said they weren't going to be able to build any of it without tens of millions of dollars more in incentives. So Dallas caves on that and we still await any concrete plans to put into reality what they showed us to get the city on board and the vote passed. Every so often, Tom Hicks talks about how he's going to dedicate himself to developing the extra land around the Ballpark that was given to the team specifically because the team owners promised new development on it. And nothing ever happens with it. When Tom Schiffer was ousted in the Rangers executive offices, he and Hicks went on and on about how his job would be to get that development going. As of right now nothing has happened. But even if the problem is a spike in land values, the end result is that the development doesn't happen (or doesn't happen as quickly or to the extent that was promised and imagined), making the public investment in even more dubious. If the goal was really developing a section of downtown, I'm sure there were cheaper and more effective ways to do it (Fort Worth managed to completely revitalize their downtown a little over a decade ago without a sports team at all). Teams shouldn't promise development, really, especially if the team is in charge of it and never actually produces it like in Dallas/Arlington. And with stadiums being replaced more and more frequently, having long waits for development to start can mean that the development comes just about the time that the team is crying for a new stadium. Reunion Arena lasted what? 20 years. (Of course, no development at all ever came around Reunion).
First off, the reason why I believe developement hasnt come to the new facilities in Dallas was because they were all done wrong. The Ballpark, as beautiful as it as, should have never been built way out in suburban Arlington if developement was in mind. That was like promising development for the Astrodome. Suburban venue's rarely attract development and are usually surrounded by large easy to access parking lots. Baseball Parks work best in urban areas as in the case with Fenway, Wrigley, Pac Bell, etc......Now imagine if the Ballpark in Arlington were in downtown Dallas. With the 81 games it plays host to every year, this could have been a major shot in the arm for downtown Dallas, especially if it were in the West End area, a perfect setting for a ballpark. That was a huge missed opportunity for Dallas and one of the main reasons why developement promised for Arlington will never appear. As for developement around AAC, we all know that would have happened but the nasty squabble between the developers and the city has held that up from even happening. Because that one company (Paladium Corp I believe) owns all of the land surrounding AAC, developement is literally being held hostage if there demand are not met. If this wasnt the case, developement would have been there already.......thus disproving this myth. While development spurred on from a new stadiums might appear to be a myth due to what has happened in Dallas, it doesnt mean it doesnt work in other cities. Take a trip to Denver's LoDo area where Coors Field is. You'll see what a stadium could do for an area. Baltimore's Inner Harbour, Cleveland's Gateway Complex and its effects on donwtown Cleveland are all great examples. As is Sand Diego's Petco Park, which has already attracted a new 30-story hotel was built on it third base side and tower's over the park. The BOB and AWA has also brought life to downtown Phoenix. So have Safeco Field and Seahawks Stadium. Its happening in various cities all over the nation........ And even though the area around MMP has been slow to develope, MMP and the people it has borught back to downtown after hours has played probably the biggest role in downtown's revitalization. Before the arrival of MMP, downtown Houston was literally a 9-5 place that was a ghost town after hours. That has all completely changed since 1996, when plans for MMP were announced. Since then, revitalization efforts all over downtown have sprung up, bringing life into the city's core. No one can really deny that it has been a myth here..........
Here's the "master plan" for the AAC area, by the way: http://www.victorydallas.com/masterplan.asp All we've completed is Phase One (which is the arena only). We're six years since the beginning of the project and there's nothing, developmentwise, to show for it. The current plan is for stuff to start opening in 2006, but the original plan was that stuff would open when the arena opened. So until construction is actually underway, I'll continue to be skeptical.
mrpaige -- the dallas situation, as i undestand it, was a huge hose job. at least some of that development was supposed to be private from perot, right?? and he didn't live up to it...right? there were actual, tangible promises of real live development. that's very different from what we had here in houston. here, we were told to look at places that had put ballparks in old areas of town (denver, baltimore, etc) and see the economic effect the parks were having. but never, ever, never did the city or any real private interest say, "yes...if you vote to make this happen, we will begin construction on project X."
Baltimore has the giant wharehouse. It blocks the baltimore harbor. It looks ok. But I wonder if the harbor view would be pretty awesome too. In DC, well, if the land was available, we could have some pretty impressive views as well.
Hicks and Ross Perot, Jr. own the land. The city gave it to them. Paladium was going to be a development partner. But who's to say that development couldn't have been achieved without building the stadium. Other cities have managed to redevelop areas without having to build a stadium to do it. That's not to say that development hasn't come in many places, but Baltimore's redevelopment was part of a larger effort. They didn't just plop a ballpark down and let the development come. They actively sought and planned development and worked to bring it there. The ballpark was a selling point of that, and I'm sure it helped, but the ballpark didn't just spring up followed by development. My understanding is that Denver approached things in a similar way, as did Cleveland. San Diego has a situation similar to Dallas. The team owners pushed the development. They didn't just plop the stadium down and wait for development to happen, they actively pursued it. It was part of their plan, and they're apparently better at it than Ross Perot and Tom Hicks. I just think that if you want to meximize the development, someone has to take an active role in getting it done, whether that be the city or the team or whoever. Of course, if you trust the wrong guy, you never get the development at all (like in Dallas). But I don't think you get the promised results without someone pushing it to get done. But that opens the question as to whether the stadium is necessary to get the development in the first place. Cities have done it (and done it well) without spending the money to build a stadium. Would a well-developed and well-pursued plan bring development without building a stadium? Oh, and I think the Ballpark Place thing is fine. It might look jarring at first just because it's different than the space there now, but everyone would quickly get used to it, I believe.
All of the development was supposed to be private from Hicks and Perot, Jr. (aside from the city's money that's going into it). But besides that, no development ever came around Reunion, which was not hindered by a particular private owner having the land and not doing anything with it. It just didn't draw any development (and eventually a parking garage was built). But Hunt said it would be a magnet for development and that's how he sold the city on building it way back when. But like I said, I think you have to have a plan to get the best results. And if there is someone who's responsible to develop land as part of the plan, get those promises in writing (though Dallas County is probably not going to learn from the city's mistake and is going to end up giving Jerry Jones over $425 million for his new stadium without getting Jerry's promised surrounding development in writing.... though I actually trust Jones to actually get his promised development done. Don't know why I trust him, but I do).
I just wanted to add (because it doesn't get said enough)... MMP is the most beautiful place in Houston when there is good weather, and its a day game. The past two Sunday home games (against the Brewers, and the Reds), have been SPECTACULAR... and honestly, the place looks so great on TV, and even better in person. You don't normally get that out of any stadium... and couple it with the fact that there is not one bad seat in the house, there's easy access in and out, the games are still affordable, there's plenty to do at the ballpark besides watching the game, there's a roof in case of bad weather, its located downtown... MMP is the best stadium in Houston, Texas, hell... all of the lower half of the United States. Its wonderful. (now back to the talk about stadium development)
Then the President shouldn't have had the city take all that land that they were promising to develop. And there is space there, aside from the parking lots, to develop. It was the reason the land was given to the President and his ownership group. And Hicks continues to perpetuate this idea that development is coming. The stupid thing is that Arlington still would've voted to build the Ballpark even without the promised development. And it would've been cheaper since the city wouldn't have had to take the extra land (and that ended up costing a lot after the lawsuits were finished). With the 81 games it plays host to every year, this could have been a major shot in the arm for downtown Dallas, especially if it were in the West End area, a perfect setting for a ballpark. Tell it to the city. They didn't want anything to do with building a ballpark back then (and putting it in the West End area would defeat the purpose. That area has done been developed).
