lithiumaneurysm

They also want the Ion coalition to take preemptive action against Third Ward gentrification:

What compensation does the city offer to businesses affected by regular road construction? I don't think the dozens of businesses on Memorial Drive on the west side are getting anything for the pain of that disastrous project. I'm not sure why transit projects should be (and often are) held to a different standard. Infrastructure projects are disruptive by nature and a necessary evil. Is this what the people want? Houston voters approved a five-line light rail system over a decade ago and never got what they were promised. District 7 just flipped from an anti-transit congressman to a pro-transit congresswoman. Kinder Institute surveys every year show half of all Houstonians would prefer to live in in more dense, walkable neighborhoods as opposed to car-dependent suburbs. It's inaccurate to conflate the use of freeways in a heavily car-dependent city with popular demand. The only accurate way to measure what Houstonians want is by scientific surveys and ballot referendums, which suggest the opposite of what you say.

True, which is good. But TOD Streets are a much more limited classification than Walkable Places, which can be created anywhere if property owners support it. TOD Streets are, of course, limited to where fixed transit exists, which doesn't cover much of the city. Better than nothing, though.

These are great improvements over the current code, especially mandatory compliance near transit stops and more stringent site planning standards. However, if I'm reading slide 21 correctly, development in Walkable Place zones will still have to meet 100% of the city's minimum parking requirements. That's disappointing—excessive parking is probably the biggest issue on corridors like Lower Westheimer, but at least with this new ordinance future lots will be placed behind buildings. Requiring additional bike parking doesn't offset the impact of surface parking lots on walkability. I wish the committee would have been a bit bolder here; if we want these Walkable Places to represent something other than the Houston status quo, parking needs to be completely optional.

I was bored a couple of months ago and made a map of all the filming locations (that I could identify) in Houston. The only scene I'm missing is the one with Travis Scott at a swimming pool - not sure if that was filmed in Houston, but the rest of the video was.

Seriously. Off-street parking will remain a mainstay in Houston in the absence of parking requirements—new developments in Downtown are still consistently accompanied by parking. But removing these requirements will at least give small businesses a fighting chance to participate in urban development alongside big developers, instead of being pushed out of the game by onerous parking requirements that mandate they double their land purchases just to construct a private lot. It's completely absurd that we push the enormous cost of supplying parking entirely onto private landowners via legal mandate. It's an authoritarian solution to a problem best solved by the market, and it's particularly egregious in a country like the U.S. which (often smartly) prioritizes market solutions and private property rights. Minimum parking requirements also act against Houston's own interests. The city's annexation days are over—the only way to grow property tax revenue is through developing existing land. Every unwarranted parking lot created by these requirements neutralizes land which could otherwise be productive and reduces the city's tax revenue per unit area.

If a lot on a major thoroughfare in one of the densest and most walkable areas in Houston isn't a logical place to put a multifamily tower, I don't know what is. The only way it could be more appropriate is if it were on a rail line and had less parking. I have faith the city will not buckle to NIMBYs when reviewing this development. The only way Houston can become truly walkable is by developing the right urban context. We can have TIRZs funnel as much money as they want into complete streets with fancy brick paving, but all of that means nothing if our urban environment is still a no-man's-land of parking lots, empty fields, and blank walls. This kind of development is a sign of a healthy city. The only successful places are ones which are adaptable. Houston shouldn't shoot itself in the foot to appease people who want to keep it static.

The Fulton/San Jac connection wasn't constructed alongside the other Hardy Yards improvements due to objections from Union Pacific. That's why the Main Street tunnel was shortened and a new intersection with Burnett was created instead. Not sure if it'll be attempted in the future but it seems very difficult politically, as most things are with the railroads. Source: have had some exposure to the project at work

Via reddit:

No, it's boundless greenfield suburban development that exacerbates our flooding problems. The relentless expansion of the White Oak Bayou floodplain into the Heights isn't because of development in the Heights – it's because of what's happening all the way past Beltway 8. Blaming a single high-density building for exacerbating flooding is like claiming the Ashby high-rise creates traffic – the effect is negligible, and ironically, the development in question is part of the solution, not the problem.

By /u/zombingaround on /r/houston:

I assume most of these developments have to hire landscaping services anyway. Getting them to cut a few extra square feet of grass every couple of weeks probably doesn't amplify the cost much. Maintaining extra sidewalk space, especially in a city where concrete settles so poorly, would probably be pricier. Anyway, I wish the city would do more to promote wider sidewalks. Our politicians pay plenty of lip-service to the concept of walkability, but there's little talk of changing the ordinances which make it so difficult to achieve (parking minimums, building setbacks, etc). Of course, changing these laws would be far more controversial and politically costly than the subpar status quo.

The city's sidewalk ordinance mandates 5' minimum (6' for transit corridors). Sidewalks cost money; developers usually won't build more than what's expected of them.

There's also Rice's gigantic Greenbriar Lot two blocks to the east. Parking for $1 a day. Just a 5 minute walk to the center of Rice Village. Even at peak times there's a significant oversupply of parking in the Village – and that doesn't include Greenbriar Lot. We really need to get over this idea that there needs to parking immediately in front of every building. It's had an immensely negative impact on our urban landscape.

No, it will be south of Shepherd in the space between the Center for Continuing Studies and Reckling Park, where the tennis courts used to be.

The park and ride applies to rail as well. Suburban commuters park and then ride. Some of them use buses, some use rail. The point is that there isn't this aversion to mass transit by high-income earners that you claim there is. I just gave you multiple reasons why the discrepancy exists, but you're still trying to extrapolate that data to apply to future high-income earners who will live along the rail. That doesn't make any sense. I would more readily accept your point if it were a study of people who live within a quarter mile of a rail stop – that way, we could really demonstrate differences in commuting options by income, because all of the people studied would have equal access to the rail line. But when you add suburban commuters into the mix, it's obvious that high-income people who don't live anywhere near a rail line aren't going to exclusively use it. The study also ignores the use of rail for purposes other than commuting to work. We can safely assume that high-income residents who live near the rail would use it to visit bars in Midtown or one of the stadiums. Really, the commuter study says nothing about why we shouldn't be investing in light rail. We still have my aforementioned evidence showing a clear positive correlation between light rail access and property values. In addition, we can look to the Houston Area Survey's clear demonstration of a significant demand for transit options within the city. Why would developers even bother abiding by the City's stringent transit-oriented development standards if it didn't yield some significant return for them? The commuter study also notes that high-income earners are the most likely to walk to work. If they're willing to engage in such peasantry as walking in Houston, why won't they take advantage of a convenient, high-frequency rail service?

There are multiple problems with your interpretation of the 2013 study. First, the study is an analysis of commuters to Downtown from all areas of the city. It makes perfect sense that high-income people use the rail less, because the rail doesn't serve many high-income people. We can note two things: A majority of people who work in Downtown do not live near the area. This is clearly shown in appendix B of the study, which displays a map showing the distribution of the studied employees across the metro. Since the service area encompasses virtually all of Houston, we can assume the statistics would regress towards the transportation mode distribution of the entire city, which is auto-dominated for high-income workers. The population served by the rail line is not predominately high-income. Since this study was conducted in 2013, it predates a significant amount of affluent new high-income development in the area. This is shown on page 84, where higher income correlates with a longer commute to Downtown, with the exception of those who make over $200k a year (obviously a very small fraction of the population).These explain the discrepancies in rail use by income. However, in addition, your interpretation ignores the fact that this study has nothing to do with "probability." The commuter survey is supposed to provide a snapshot of existing conditions, not a prediction of future trends. There is nothing to suggest that high-income workers will not increase their use of public transit when they begin moving into Downtown and other districts at higher rates over the next decade. We can't extrapolate this data to say anything about what high-income Downtown commuters will "probably" do if they are suddenly served by rail, because that isn't the point of the study. Your interpretation also ignores the use of park and ride, which is actually highest among those who make more than $100k a year (high income earners). It makes sense that few of them use the rail or bus exclusively, because they don't live near Downtown in the first place and are able to afford a car for the suburb-to-transit center commute. So how can we determine what people will do when they start living near alternative transit modes? We can survey them to see what they say they want. And that's pretty clear cut. For a Houston-specific example, we can simply look to Rice's Kinder Institute, which publishes the annual Houston Area Survey. For the past few years, the report has shown consistent metro-wide support for transit and more urban forms of living. That's why these apartment projects exist; that's why this development is taking place.

This is an utterly ridiculous argument. Anecdotes have no place in a discussion about macroscopic systems like a transit network. Are you seriously trying to argue that two examples of defunct businesses are enough to invalidate the entire METRORail system? I don't see why it's so difficult to have a reasoned discussion about the implementation of light rail in this city. Why don't we look at the actual scientific evidence? There have been a number of case studies on our city's rail system that have demonstrated a statistically significant impact on property values and development. Take this 2011 study from UT, for example, examining the relationship between property values and the Red Line: Or how about this analysis, which also suggests a positive relationship between property values and the light rail? Or this paper that discusses the potential for the new Green, Purple and Red lines to further the gentrification of traditionally low-income neighborhoods? Or we could look at a more general analysis of light rail systems (not specific to Houston) that establishes a positive correlation with property values. The point of long-term transportation planning like the creation of a light rail system is that it takes a long time. The METRORail is an investment in Houston's future and forms the basis for a metropolitan transportation network. We are gradually seeing the benefits as new development has started sprouting up in the Museum District, Midtown and Downtown. Scientific analysis leaves little doubt that the increased property values and propensity for development seen in these neighborhoods over the past few years are in part due to the introduction of light rail.

Metro board member Christof Spieler gave a presentation at a meeting of Rice ASCE today. He said that the post office site is TCR's "preferred Downtown station site" and that Mayor Parker is pushing for an I-10 alignment to avoid neighborhood disruption. He also talked about a lot of other stuff: the DLI, new Downtown bike lane, bus network reimagining, improvements to the convention district and so on. He's basically played a major role in every exciting development that gets talked about on this forum.

I doubt politics will that much of a role -- certainly not to the extent that has delayed Keystone XL for so many years. That was the perfect symbolic issue to divide Democrats and Republicans. In contrast, I really don't see what serious political divides could form over this project. Republicans like it because it stands in contrast to California's expensive government-funded initiative and it's a symbol of Texas's economic strength; Democrats like it because it's high-speed rail. I think this project has a lot more going for it than people give it credit for. While the funding details aren't clear, many factors are lining up and there's a surprising amount of political interest from both sides of the aisle.

I agree, this project really needs to focus on Downtown and the East End after the completion of the western stretch. A revitalization of the bayou through Downtown could revolutionize the district. There's so much empty and underutilized space that has the potential to become an urban oasis.

I hope this yields some good news. This project is taking forever.

If it has the proper mass transit connections I don't think it would be too remote a location.

I just attended a meeting of the Rice chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers where architecture professor William Cannady discussed the development of this project in detail. He has been working on the design of this project since its inception, so this information is definitely credible. Apparently, construction started last Monday - and the delay was due to the city taking over eight months to approve a building permit due to the high volume of construction projects around the metro. Here's the notes that I took. I'm not sure how much of this information is known, but regardless: $75 million projectThe project began in 2006 as part of an effort by the City of Houston to encourage transit-oriented development along Main Street. The city purchased four blocks from Winbern north to Stuart on the west side of Main for the purpose of creating a mixed-use development and a new building for the city's Code Enforcement Office.The development will encompass six distinct but interconnected buildings on top of a three story parking garage. In addition, two stories will be dedicated to ground-floor retailThere will be small studio apartments available: 500 sq. ft. for $1000/monthThe apartments are geared towards younger demographics, including recent college graduates and inner-city workersThe city has reduced parking requirements for this project. In addition, there is dedicated space for bicycles, electric vehicles and ZipcarsParking will cost around $100/month for residentsApartments will feature exposed concrete floors and steel-framed ceilings to give a studio/warehouse atmosphereThe project preserves the retail building at the corner of Winburn and Main, as well as the restaurant patio adjacent to itDr. Cannady mentioned the purchase of a third block - possibly the one bounded by Travis, Berry, Millam and Holman? - for a hotel, but this was scrapped?Dr. Cannady also noted that the old Alley Theatre across the street has been purchased by the same developer. The historic structure will be preserved and a new building will go on that blockThe MATCH project next door will feature four theatres, two practice rooms, a cafe with patio and an outdoor performance plaza for street musiciansThe developers chose to make the garage a podium instead of a wrap to increase the flexibility of the architecture. In addition, this creates more urban connectivity and allows greater access to the public courtyard on the inside. There was a really interesting discussion about the efficiency and aesthetics of podium garages vs. wraps; in summary, podium garages allow better traffic flow, more flexibility with existing city building codes, they're not nearly as ugly, they allow for better separation between retail parking and residential parking, they create more space for courtyards and better views for residents, they maximize the space available to rentPart of the development may be leased to Rice University - which remains involved in the project - to provide accommodations for visitorsAn imgur album of some pictures I took can be found here.

Glad to hear that Dallas is seeing significant centralized development too. The fact that multiple major Texas cities are being revitalized in this way bodes well for the entire state. It'll be interesting to see how both Houston and Dallas deal with urban planning and infrastructure issues in their cores, especially since both cities have similar patterns of growth.