Jump to content


Full Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by iah77

  1. 2 hours ago, editor said:

    I drove through that area a couple of weeks ago, and I can understand people worrying.  They see what Elysian's expansion has done to the neighborhood, and want no more of it.

    The neighborhood is kinda like a shabby version of the Heights, and appears happy to be both close to downtown and under the radar.

    I understand the city wanting to extend San Jacinto, though I don't fully grasp where it expects all the traffic to go once it gets north of the freeway.  In pre-COVD times, this would be a catalyst for gentrifying that little neighborhood with downtown commuters.  Today?  What's the point?


    I don't think its just downtown commuters, it's an affordable area right next to the heights and a lot of great areas so of course demand is high regardless. 


    This area is really cut off in a bad way due to the railroad, future hardy extension and I think it would benefit from having another access point. Main which is the other way to downtown floods badly and is only one lane. 


    EDIT: I think this would allow portions of Main to be made more pedestrian friendly since it has great infrastructure to work in that direction also. 

  2. 41 minutes ago, Paco Jones said:

    Okay, thank you.  I didn't know if something happen to make them take this stance or if it was genuine.

    Ironically by delaying this project,  Houston might not fill it's quota for affordable housing and will get another big fine from the federal government. It's a genuine issue but I wonder if its worth it long term.  

  3. 1 hour ago, 004n063 said:

    @monarchI appreciate your optimism. There's no point being a total debbie downer about this, and a parking garage won't make or break this project.

    But there's also no guarantee that the surface parking lots to the south, west, and southeast will actually be developed into anything.

    And while the renders don't preclude pedestrianization or non-death-trap bike lanes, they certainly don't guarantee them.

    Again, I don't think a parking garage will ruin what this could be, but Brooklyn is right to say that it's not forward-thinking. 

    Parking garages are better than surface parking lots and golf courses, but that only gives them the distinction of being the third worst use of urban land.

    Show me a project that shrinks Fannin and San Jacinto down to two car lanes each; show me a plan to make Eagle fully pedestrianized from San Jacinto to Main, show me continuous (i.e. dipless) sidewalks and well-marked two-meter cycle tracks on both sides, pedestrian signal prioritization, protected intersections, etc., and I'll start to get excited.

    It seems very likely that this project will improve the livability of the area to some degree. But if you're going to call something an "Innovation District," then that innovation should be apparent in the urban planning/infrastructure side, too.


    I haven't seen much evidence of that here.

    Investing that much in a garage is actually a very strong indicator that they plan to build everything.

    This is a academic innovation district, not an urban planning nightmare experiment as you are describing. I would be much more inclined to support your vision if Houston was building heavy rail but without that I think destroying road capacity is a huge negative. Plus everything you mentioned is the City's responsibility and not Rice's. 

    • Like 8
    • Thanks 1
  4. 59 minutes ago, JBTX said:

    He's clearly been taking a back seat for a while, letting Nick Wong and Nick Fine run everything. With just about all of his restaurants closing last year, I'm not surprised to see him go. Let someone else deal with opening all those restaurants at once.

    Chris has made a huge mark on the Houston food scene and we are all better off for it.

    I don't know if that's necessarily true, I used to go to Wild Oats a lot and he was frequently there actively managing so seems a bit out of character to me. This was maybe just a few months ago

  5. 5 minutes ago, Brooklyn173 said:

    I am probably in the strong minority on this, but I am disappointed to see a development like this with such a large parking structure. The Ion, a block from a light rail stop and once the MetroBus project is complete, probably one of the most transit accessable developments in the area, should have a plan that reflects that opportunity. More parking, more traffic, more delays and environmental issues. I was hoping for something a lot more forward thinking.

    It's a very large project and this garage will serve multiple buildings, and keep in mind the project is replacing what were literally 4-5 blocks of asphalted parking previously. Traffic is not bad in this area nor delays so what exactly are you complaining about? Overall Ion will lead to more people using the light rail and once it becomes convenient enough people will take it instead of paying higher fees for parking etc.  

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1
  6. On 7/15/2022 at 10:43 PM, bobruss said:

    So it looks like they intend to take out the two houses west of the Rothko for the meditation garden and moving their offices and archives to Sul Ross,

    That makes a lot of sense. So essentially it's one long park with the Menil at one end and the Rothko at the other. Perhaps they would consider taking Mulberry out from Sul Ross to Branard eliminating the street between the two buildings, and create a continuous open space. Besides less traffic would be a good thing in that neighborhood.

    I think taking out that street would really change the feeling and view of the Renzo Piano building in a negative way. It's designed perfectly to fit in its context as is. The Menil's vision was to integrate their projects into the existing neighborhood, not create a monumental campus. I do think the street could be made to look a lot nicer though...

    • Like 1
  7. 1 hour ago, JBTX said:

    I drive there often. I do agree about the trees. A lot. Love me some nice trees.

    I don't know if I agree so much re: bus highway. Busses (and plenty of cars) already roar up and down that street, so I don't see much of a difference.

    I like the idea of a the BRT, I just think it really should be an underpass here to avoid a large dark area that probably won't be maintained and won't be so ugly on the eye. 

    • Like 4
  8. 5 hours ago, Amlaham said:

    1. Sweden (who makes Volvo), doesn't even have coal plants. Sweden has done an amazing job generating electricity from NON-COAL plants. They're actually extremely advanced in the sense that all their buses and electricity is generated from recycling trash (its actually interesting, look it up) :) Your argument about coal plants is an American problem. Also, your argument about the C40 causing more pollutants to make than a gas XC40 ignores the entire polluting process of generating gas itself. 

    2. "None of the science matches," maybe due some more research? Pollution in our own city was significantly down during the pandemic because people weren't driving their cars. Your argument sounds like "global warming is fake." Won't argue with someone with that mindset.

    3. My argument about electrification of vehicles was in reference to the O&G industry, and my argument about highway fanatics was in reference to not expanding other modes of transpiration.......not about eliminating personal vehicles. My statement wasn't even complex, idk what made you think that? I never said personal vehicles are going anywhere, and if you REALLY read my statement, you would understand that i meant we need to expand transportation, NOT eliminate one or the other.  

    You are right, Sweden actually gets almost all of its energy from nuclear and dams which would never happen here .. They have 14 reactors for 10 million people and I think we have 4 for 29 million. Again it's a policy issues where electric cars are being promoted yet there isn't enough funding to update the electric grid to support it (on top of the massive population growth here I'm assuming) 

    Volvo has been Chinese for for over a decade now so I would not tie the two so closely together. I guess the main issue is that the government at federal, state, and local levels has no common direction and as a result everything is being done poorly. Houston will never have density to warrant real public transportation at the rate we are going due to parking minimums and ridiculous setbacks. Most of the old buildings people like would be illegal to build under current building setback codes, especially after Ashby where the setback is super high against residential structures for tall buildings. I guess I don't disagree with your vision but more about how it's totally incompatible with local regulations in their current state. It's like forcing puzzle pieces together violently, so until other factors change I think heavy emphasis on public transport is not the best use of funds instead of say education etc.  

    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, JBTX said:

    I'm curious (in all honesty) how this destroys the neighborhood. It looks like the Overpass is built over the existing roadway. Based on the video rendering, I don't even see any buildings/homes in the area missing.

    Drive through the area, it's a nice boulevard with old trees in the middle.


    If you owned a historic house on said boulevard would you want a bus highway elevated in front of your house? 

    Not to mention it will probably become a giant homeless camp with the current state of the city. 

    • Like 2
  10. 3 hours ago, Amlaham said:

    Most car companies have already pledged that they will be fully electric within the next 10-20 years.

    Companies going fully electric (will only make EV)

    • Alfa Romero- 2027
    • Audi- 2033
    • Bentley- 2030
    • Buick- 2035
    • Cadillac- 2030
    • Chevrolet- 2035
    • Fiat- 2030
    • GMC- 2035 
    • Honda- 2040
    • Hyundai- 2040
    • Jaguar- 2025
    • Kia- 2040
    • Lexus- 2030
    • Lotus- 2028
    • Mazda- 2050
    • Mercedes- 2030
    • Mini- 2030
    • Rolls Royce- 2030
    • Toyota- 2033
    • Volkswagen- 2040
    • Volvo- 2030

    It's obvious where the trend is going. 

    Also, idk whats with the obsession older people have with obnoxiously large highways like i10. You guys are still stuck in traffic, 26 lanes wide. Whenever there is an example of poor planning, they always reference i10 and how expensive it was and how it's still a problem. Ya'll don't learn from mistakes? Also, the argument "well I'm still going to drive in my car and not use public transportation so I only car about highways and not about rail" is the definition of being selfish. You're only thinking of your self and if you had any authority in society, that society would fail. Same argument as "I don't walk so I don't care for sidewalks to be built." Can't argue with closed minded people still living in 1950s though 🤷‍♂️

    What difference does an electric car make if the electricity still comes from a coal power plant?

    Volvo says emissions from making EVs can be 70% higher than petrol models - and claims it can take up to 9 YEARS of driving before they become greener assuming you buy from a green provider. Volvo claims carbon-intensive production for battery and steel makes its C40 EV more polluting to manufacture than an XC40 with a petrol engine.

    None of the science matches your "trend" but it sounds cool so it's what is being done. 

    Doesn't electrification support the argument for more roads then as it shows personal vehicles aren't going anywhere?





    • Like 1
  11. 1 hour ago, TacoDog said:

    Why? What good would that be?

    This forum is honesty crazy with people literally praying for the demise of city's backbone industry. You will go crazy trying to tell them they are wrong when all the data shows people have a preference for cars and that energy transitions take a long time .. Every city they list as ideal is so expensive people can't afford to have kids there or have lower social mobility than here. 

    • Like 6
  12. 12 hours ago, Avossos said:

    I would be extremely disappointed in that. Autry Park would be an awesome spot.

    I was at first also but I think its better long term. I think RH is better where it is. It's much more accessible there to their "typical" customer and it should halt the decline of Highland Village to build a new flagship. I think Autry Park will have no problem finding more exciting tenants . 

  13. 8 hours ago, MontroseFan said:

    The look and layout is pretty close to Hotel San Jose, which is 200-250 typically, so not that bad! Look forward to having it nearby.

    I highly doubt this is going to cost the same as St.Jose whish is an old refurbished motel...

  14. 2 hours ago, editor said:

    Is it just me, or is it ironic that a project that's always flogging its environmental/new energy/futurist visions in public is building a parking garage next to a light rail line?

    I think this garage is expected to serve the several large buildings they want to build around it so it makes sense to me I feel. I don't think  metro rail is extensive enough yet to say the average person who works there can get around on it exclusively.  

    • Like 7
  15. 1 hour ago, samagon said:

    never mind that the site had apartments on it before. I'm not sure how many units there were, or will be, but the difference cannot be so great as to have warranted the backlash.

    It has always been apartments and god knows this tower is better than an ugly garage "wrap" apartment complex like they build in most places. If it was purely about the money building that would have been much less headache for them and probably been pretty profitable. 

    • Like 2
  16. I never imagined HAIF would ever be NIMBY central lol.

    It's totally normal to have highrises with homes in most places in the world. Traffic is not bad on Bissonnet/Sunset Blvd. It's transit rich and will be a great addition. My parents live around the corner so I frequent the area. People here want the benefits of density without any actual density lol. 

    • Like 9
  17. 2 hours ago, JJxvi said:

    One of the intermediate plans for this, which was only scrapped within the last year or so, that was sprung on most people would have shut down all left turns except in a couple locations.  It would have meant that everyone traveling west on 11th and needing to get to the south half of the neighborhood and everyone travelling east trying to get to the north half, would be funneled into only like two entrances, so if you lived like on Rutland within a block of 11th, half the neighborhood would be forced to drive by your house.

    I think many that I've seen discuss this are frustrated that this is being sold as "bike lanes" and not with bike lanes being the excuse to justify removing car lanes.  Anyone in that lives or has every lived in the neighborhood knows that bike lanes on 11th does'nt really make sense compared to the existing network as it exists right now.  There is already an off street E/W path for cyclists just 4 blocks to the south.  In addition, 3 blocks to the north is an ideal wide, quiet E/W street at 14th which is ideal for adding a new E/W bike lane that is in the heart of the neighborhood rather than being so close to the already existing E/W path at roughly 7th street.  In addition, 14th is already a shared car/cyclist lanes east of Heights Blvd to Micheaux.  Anybody with a brain who felt like bike lanes were needed would add them on 14th.

    It seems to me the real argument for road diet is about safety, but that message isn't getting to the people who are mad. They just hear that lanes they use probably every day are going to be closed, and then they hear that they wont be able to turn left into their neighborhood anymore (I think/hope this concern was mostly fixed), all for bike lanes that would make way more sense on a different quieter street that would connect many of the same existing trails in the bike plan that isn't duplicating another path just a half mile away.

    Does anyone else have a problem with how crappy some of the city's "safety" interventions look? The way they just build curbs looks horrible and I think people would be more receptive if it did not look so bad. The one they did by Rice drives me crazy and the space has accumulated a lot of tree waste since now it cannot be cleaned easily. In other cities they tend to raise the area and landscape it so it actually looks better than before. 

  18. 33 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

    It's not that you'll inspire people to walk around by forcing them down to the street level (although maybe they'd be slightly more likely). It's that having a skybridge over a street hurts the streetscape for anyone else. It says "Special people up here - plebeians down there." Think of any great street that people like to walk around on. Lower Main Street. South Congress or 6th Street in Austin. Houston Street in San Antonio. McKinney Street in Dallas. The Strand in Galveston. Anywhere in the French Quarter in New Orleans. Now picture a skybridge - just one skybridge - going over that street. Terrible!

    Plus, it sets a precedent. Think this will be the last medical building in the Museum District? And every medical building will have to have a skybridge for their patients so they don't die. Next thing you know, the Museum District is Medical Center North, and we will mourn the neighborhood that might have been.

    This area is pretty rough right now so I would totally be happy with a "Medical Center North". You make this area sound like some elegant area of Back Bay or something. The stretch between here and the Ion is literally abandoned buildings, needles, and a flower shop. 

    • Like 2
  • Create New...