East River: Mixed-Use Development By Midway

[HOUTEX]

http://swamplot.com/former-brown-root-building-3-moving-on-from-amazon-lure-to-world-series-contention/2017-10-24/

 

THE LIGHTS have been changed again in the vacant office building at the center of Midway’s newly renamed East River site on Buffalo Bayou in the Fifth Ward. The 12-story former Building 3 on the KBR campus the development firm bought last year has progressed from referencing Amazon minus a couple of vowels to spelling out our city’s well-accomplished hometown baseball team minus its initial A. 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by HOUTEX

[Mr.Clean19]

Wow @CrockpotandGravel good find. How did you find out that they were tied?

 

Also, something that I noticed is that the park they have identified on the mid-western portion along the Bayou is about the only portion of the site that falls within the 500-year flood plain. I think they will lower this to the bayou as a boat dock or the open patch to the north could be used for the infamous swimming hole.

 

 

[HOUTEX]

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/abandoned-building-lights-up-with-messages-new-future-for-property/285-547077836

 

For some perspective, the 65-block chunk that encompasses East River is more than four times larger than what might be Midway’s best-known development: CityCentre.

 

“It basically is going to be a town, but it’s going to be a town that was conceived and developed and executed intentionally to be a pedestrian-oriented walkable community,” says Hightower.

 

Even as Midway beats back the jungle, it’s planting a forest. The property is now home to roughly 300 trees, which were uprooted by construction along Post Oak Blvd.

 

“These are trees that we will then transplant throughout the project as we develop,” Hightower explains. “We’ll use them for street trees and park trees.”

Edited May 3, 2018 by HOUTEX

[Triton]

3 hours ago, HOUTEX said:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/abandoned-building-lights-up-with-messages-new-future-for-property/285-547077836

 

For some perspective, the 65-block chunk that encompasses East River is more than four times larger than what might be Midway’s best-known development: CityCentre.

 

“It basically is going to be a town, but it’s going to be a town that was conceived and developed and executed intentionally to be a pedestrian-oriented walkable community,” says Hightower.

 

Even as Midway beats back the jungle, it’s planting a forest. The property is now home to roughly 300 trees, which were uprooted by construction along Post Oak Blvd.

 

“These are trees that we will then transplant throughout the project as we develop,” Hightower explains. “We’ll use them for street trees and park trees.”

You know, I should have given up on Regent Square long ago, but if we do lose Regent Square, it's good knowing we at least have Midway with this development because, considering their track record, I think they have a good chance on actually delivering this project and not over a decade from now.

[TexasArchitect]

I drove by this area the other day, and am curious to everyone's thoughts to what will happen to the neighboring communities. 

 

Since the plan looks like midway is looking to develop a "town" within the 150 acres... would the neighboring area (specifically east of Hirsch Rd.) stay as is? Or would that get gentrified?

 

Also, I see architect on record for the project is Gensler. Any updates in general to the master planning of this east river project?

[jmitch94]

If it gets built there is a 100% chance of gentrification. 

[Visitor]

6 hours ago, jmitch94 said:

If it gets built there is a 100% chance of gentrification. 

Exactly. People are aware that gentrification is a market outcome and not a planned activity in most cases, right?  As an area becomes more desirable, the limited inventory increases in price and lower income residents either take the inflated offers or fall victim to being priced out of the area. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Visitor

[I'm Not a Robot]

5 hours ago, TexasArchitect said:

Any updates in general to the master planning of this east river project?

 

 

AFAIK, They are supposed to release more information regarding this later in the summer but I guess we will have to see as time goes on. I haven't heard of any updates since the pitch to Amazon.  If they do end up coming through with the plan, I  hope that they break ground sooner than later.   If I recall, it's going to be built in phases, so it would be nice to see them actually get started on the first phase.

 

Whichever grocery store decides to build on the East Side near downtown first is going to get a lot of business quickly because everyone seems to travel to the HEB on Alabama or Kroger in the Heights. I think phase I will include a grocery store. Maybe Amazon will put a Whole Foods there after being pitched for HQ2. 

[j_cuevas713]

I'm so excited about this. What are the chances a light rail line goes straight there or an extension of the Green line?

[Mr.Clean19]

Why get light rail when you can have a Gondola to Downtown? Hopefully plans are released soon. They have been suspiciously quiet lately. If you ever need an update on what is going on, you just need to go to The New Potato across the street from the site. The owner Paul can fill you in. 

[mcook2002]

25 minutes ago, Mr.Clean19 said:

Why get light rail when you can have a Gondola to Downtown? Hopefully plans are released soon. They have been suspiciously quiet lately. If you ever need an update on what is going on, you just need to go to The New Potato across the street from the site. The owner Paul can fill you in. 

Also can just go there because its a cool bar.  

[Mr.Clean19]

There is a Notice of Special Exception Request on the property. "To allow local streets to have reduced right of way width and To allow reduced block Lengths along Major Thoroughfares."

[BeerNut]

On 5/22/2018 at 11:45 AM, Mr.Clean19 said:

Why get light rail when you can have a Gondola to Downtown? Hopefully plans are released soon. They have been suspiciously quiet lately. If you ever need an update on what is going on, you just need to go to The New Potato across the street from the site. The owner Paul can fill you in. 

I'm thinking more like the ferries in Bangkok.  

[Angostura]

21 hours ago, Mr.Clean19 said:

There is a Notice of Special Exception Request on the property. "To allow local streets to have reduced right of way width and To allow reduced block Lengths along Major Thoroughfares."

 

Yes, please. Most of our streets are too damn wide. I'd like to see them do something like 20-ft between facades, but I doubt they'll be that ambitious.

 

In EaDo, even with 5-ft setbacks 40% of land is not buildable. Hard to achieve decent density without high-rise construction unless you get the RoW widths down.

[Ross]

9 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

Yes, please. Most of our streets are too damn wide. I'd like to see them do something like 20-ft between facades, but I doubt they'll be that ambitious.

 

In EaDo, even with 5-ft setbacks 40% of land is not buildable. Hard to achieve decent density without high-rise construction unless you get the RoW widths down.

Hogwash. Most of Europe has 100 plus foot wide streets and sidewalks where there's public transport. Otherwise, there's no room for buses or trams or trolleys. Or sidewalks.

[Texasota]

Oh come on, you know that's not true.

Most of Europe has major boulevards and avenues that are that wide (or wider), but the vast majority of streets in European cities are nowhere near 100ft. 

Now, I don't know that we particularly need (or would even want) Medieval-scaled streets, but 100' ROW is only a good idea IF a lot of that is dedicated to transit and/or bike lanes. 

I actually think Main Street Downtown/Midtown is a good local precedent - that ROW is probably, what? 60' roadbed+ sidewalks? Probably narrower in a few places. 

And that gives us, at the most, a tramway, two lanes of traffic, two parking/drop-off lanes, and (somewhat narrow) sidewalks. 

Now, I would probably argue that a street like Clinton should be wider than that because it needs to be a way through for cars, but the internal streets don't need that width because, while cars need to access them (or at least some of them), they will be using them for garage access, deliveries, etc, and speed and volume are not the concern. 

 

For Clinton, my ideal street would look something like this:

Tramway/BRT: 35' (ish)

Car travel lanes (either 2 or 4 - I'm feeling generous): 22-44' (I know that the City's standard lanes are 11', but that's just an arbitrary compromise. I would argue for 11' lanes if it's one lane each direction and 10' lanes if it's two)

2-way PBL: 12' 

Sidewalks: 30' (10' + 5' for street trees and such on each side)

 

Which would give you a ROW of b/w 99' and 121'. But again, that's one street, and I don't think the interior streets need to be anywhere near that wide.

[Angostura]

13 hours ago, Ross said:

Hogwash. Most of Europe has 100 plus foot wide streets and sidewalks where there's public transport. Otherwise, there's no room for buses or trams or trolleys. Or sidewalks.

 

Most of Europe has SOME wide streets, but not ONLY wide streets.

 

London: Oxford Rd and the Strand are 80-ft or so between facades. Surrounding streets are closer to 20-25 ft.

Paris: the grand boulevards are around 100-ft between facades. Surrounding streets are closer to 20-25 ft.

Rome: some main streets are 60-70-ft between facades, side streets as little as 10-15 ft.

In EaDo, the blocks are 250-ft on a side, with 70-ft RoWs.  That means 39% of land area is publicly owned. We put another 5% off limits by imposing a 5-ft building setback. So the other 56% has to generate enough tax base to maintain all that public infrastructure, AND pay for every other city service. 

 

Point is, not EVERY street needs to be this wide. My residential street in Heights (a numbered E-W street) sees about 20-30 cars per hour. Why design this street the same way, with the same width, as one that gets 500 cars per hour? By all means keep Clinton Dr's wide RoW, but the internal streets can and should be a lot narrower.

[H-Town Man]

Yeah, you tend to have some large boulevards in Europe and then lots of small streets that give it that "Old World" feel. Montmartre and most of the Left Bank in Paris, Campo Marzio in Rome, Jewish Districts in Prague and Budapest, Covent Garden in London, most Old Towns and Altstadts... primarily small streets.

 

 

[EllenOlenska]

So a fact about Paris. Paris' grand boulevards were an invention of Napoleon III and his city planner, because the exclusively narrow streets were so easy to fill up with barricades. He wanted boulevards the width of a cavalry company. 

 

[swtsig]

14 hours ago, Ross said:

Hogwash. Most of Europe has 100 plus foot wide streets and sidewalks where there's public transport. Otherwise, there's no room for buses or trams or trolleys. Or sidewalks.

 

i mean it's awesome that most of europe has 100' wide thoroughfares but they also have an innumerable amount of much narrower, pedestrian-friendly streets that houston lacks entirely. 

 

you're like a staunch anti-urbanist.

[EllenOlenska]

2 minutes ago, swtsig said:

 

i mean it's awesome that most of europe has 100' wide thoroughfares but they also have an innumerable amount of much narrower, pedestrian-friendly streets that houston lacks entirely. 

 

you're like a staunch anti-urbanist.

Those narrow pre-19th century streets that dominate much of major European cities. 

[Ross]

3 hours ago, swtsig said:

 

i mean it's awesome that most of europe has 100' wide thoroughfares but they also have an innumerable amount of much narrower, pedestrian-friendly streets that houston lacks entirely. 

 

you're like a staunch anti-urbanist.

Those narrower streets are not pedestrian friendly. The sidewalks are generally narrower than on the thoroughfares, and often have cars parked on them.

 

 

[H-Town Man]

25 minutes ago, Ross said:

Those narrower streets are not pedestrian friendly. The sidewalks are generally narrower than on the thoroughfares, and often have cars parked on them.

 

 

 

They are generally considered the most pedestrian-friendly streets, due to the absence of traffic and the mellow atmosphere.

 

[samagon]

40 minutes ago, Ross said:

Those narrower streets are not pedestrian friendly. The sidewalks are generally narrower than on the thoroughfares, and often have cars parked on them.

 

 

 

And speed limits in these areas is a lot slower than 30 mph (urban residential is 20 mph, and strictly residential is 10 mph).

And a pedestrian that walks in the street is not going to be ticketed on these narrow interior roads (so long as they yield to cars).

And there is typically at least one of the streets that has traffic blocked off entirely to traffic where it's safe to walk (and these streets usually contain all the shops, and most of the pedestrians choose to use these streets).

 

Finally, laws in those countries are more favored towards the vulnerable party (pedestrian, or cyclist). 

 

I'm not even sure why they're asking to make the block size smaller, or have less streetfront ROW, just make the 'smaller block size' pedestrian paths between buildings, or the driveway to the parking garage. is there a minimum distance that a parking garage driveway can be? Why does it have to be a city street?

 

edit: here's a decent article on the subject:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/08/lessons-from-the-dutch-on-rising-pedestrian-traffic-deaths/

 

notable quotes:

"They think of cities as places for people in which cars (motor vehicles) are guests"

"They think of pedestrians and bicyclists as vulnerable road users and it is absolutely every driver’s obligation to protect those vulnerable users"

"Those attitudes are reinforced with harsh insurance penalties for drivers who strike a pedestrian or cyclist. They also have a philosophy that no pedestrian should ever have to cross more than two lanes of traffic at a time and one would be preferable."

 

Edited May 30, 2018 by samagon

[Angostura]

23 hours ago, EllenOlenska said:

So a fact about Paris. Paris' grand boulevards were an invention of Napoleon III and his city planner, because the exclusively narrow streets were so easy to fill up with barricades. He wanted boulevards the width of a cavalry company. 

 

 

Yes. Hausmann was a fascist.

[Angostura]

19 hours ago, Ross said:

Those narrower streets are not pedestrian friendly. The sidewalks are generally narrower than on the thoroughfares, and often have cars parked on them.

 

 

 

If the street is a pedestrian space (not a car space) then it is inherently pedestrian friendly.

 

Think of a city as divided into three kinds of space: people space (destinations; places where people on foot predominate; homes, shops, restaurants, parks), car space (roads, parking, etc.) and empty space (places where nobody ever goes; highway medians, the insides of cloverleafs, "green space"). Great, memorable, pleasant cities tend to maximize people space and minimize the other two.

 

The problem is, like the lady who swallowed the spider to catch the fly, we tend to fix the problems of not enough people space by adding more non-people places. We build our roads to wide, which means more and faster car traffic, which is dangerous and frightening for pedestrians. So we build segregated sidewalks (a people place) with landscape buffers (an empty place) to keep pedestrians away from the road (a car space). People don't like street parking in their neighborhoods, so cities require off-street parking (more car space). This makes everything further apart, so we have to move a lot of people longer distances. So we build roads for high speeds. No one wants to be right next to high-speed traffic, so we institute building setbacks (empty space) to separate homes and businesses (people places) from car places. Now things are EVEN FURTHER apart, so we need freeways (car space) with sweeping on-ramps and cloverleafs (car space), surrounded by empty space.

 

All of this is built at ruinous expense and is expensive to maintain. At the same time, the parts of a city that generate the tax revenue to support it (people places) occupy an ever-smaller proportion of land area. So when it comes time to rebuild all this infrastructure (when it comes to the end of its design life) there's no money to do it.

 

Narrowing the streets (making them for people) is a good way to start counteracting this tendency. 

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

Quote

So a fact about Paris. Paris' grand boulevards were an invention of Napoleon III and his city planner, because the exclusively narrow streets were so easy to fill up with barricades. He wanted boulevards the width of a cavalry company. 

 

and lined with trees so the Germans can march in the shade 

[cspwal]

They could narrow the ROW by 12' (the width of one lane downtown) and still have room for 2 lanes of traffic, 2 parking lanes, and wide sidewalks

[lockmat]

• This fact sheet document says it will take "over a decade" to build it. If that's the case and we just took into account the roughly 27 buildings, not including townhomes, they'd build about two buildings a year for 13.5 years.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xtxh93nqfkop3cf/AADJbQa4tmk9LJAi_RNByxjea?dl=0&preview=East+River+Fact+Sheet.pdf

 

• There is a large tract of land across the river (yes, I said it haha). I wonder what becomes of it? A mirror image?
• Where do you guys think they'll start? Townhomes? Along the river? The NE corner?

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

i met one of the dumbest people I have ever met tonight.
She owns a bar across the street from this property,. She bitched about everything having to do with the old KBR site. I was like, you don't realize the gold mine you're sitting on. I'll buy your bar when your ignorance takes over... lol