mike1

Might have to address flooding issues, though. Remember Allison..

If they do decide to go ahead with this thing, I think the biggest waste would be to develop the park so as to exist isolated in the middle of a vast oasis of surface parking and undeveloped real estate without offering any reason for people to go over and visit. Either they need to develop the park so that it's incorporated into already existing downtown development, or they need to develop it so that it attracts new development into the surrounding areas on its own. At least underground parking would draw pedestrian traffic through the area in the near-term and would serve as a catalyst for long term growth in the surrounding blocks. This is my problem with relying on surface parking alone: in the absence of any existing or future draw for people to that area except on game day, the park is likely to become just another haven for the homeless. In that case, it would be a tremendous waste of money. Either the city goes all-out and develops the park properly so as to be a cornerstone of future downtown development, or else they should just forget about it entirely. If the park proves successful in spurring development, the money spent on it won't be waste; it will be an investment that pays tremendous dividends over the long run.

But my question is, who exactly is this underground parking for? The people who are (aren't?) going to drive downtown from outside downtown to go to Pavilions, GRB, Toyota, and the park itself? Perhaps in 20 years, it will be considered terrific foresight... People who work downtown. Monthy parking rates can run $200 for good, covered spaces, especially if they are connected directly to Houston Center or the Park Shops via the tunnel system. Not a bad source of revenue for the city.

Exactly. Take a look at what those areas have to offer and make it better. Downtown needs to find and exploit niche demands that cannot be met anywhere else. I see so much demand in this town for culture, and for a sense of sense of place and history, that downtown couldn't help but be successful if only it would meet the basic needs of the marketplace. As you mention, keeping retail open during non-working hours would be a start--a basic rule of marketing is to be available when your customer is available, which means non-working hours and weekends. I would also add cleaning up the place so that people feel safe and secure being down there. Downtown is one of the safest areas of town, but it is PERCEIVED as being dangerous because it is so dark after hours, because there are so many panhandlers, and because there seems to be so much graffiti and litter in certain areas. Perception IS reality, so make sure the place is open, clean, and adequately lighted so that people have a reason to be there AND feel safe. Downtown development couldn't help but happen under those conditions. OOPS...didn't HISD already do that!

Instead of sticking their collective noses up at people who live outside of Beltway 8, the downtown types would be better off trying to learn what factors drive so many people to live, work, and shop out there in the first place. The market is going to ultimately drive the success or failure of any downtown redevelopment plan, and so it behooves those who promote downtown to learn what works elsewhere and to incorporate those ideas into their plans. You could build the Taj Mahal downtown, but if it doesn't take into account the needs of the people who will be using it, it will ultimately be a failure.

Not to be facetious, but would that be so bad? From an economic standpoint at least, the Sugar Land town center is a thriving commerical center with lots of potential for pedestrian traffic flow around it, while downtown struggles to maintain a Foleys and a CVS. Perhaps downtown has something to learn from the 'burbs.

Yes. That's true for now, but if dense development does occur around the park (and that seems to be the consensus of what most people on this site want to have happen), then the parking situation will inevitably tighten up. It's infinitely better (and cheaper) to plan for the development we hope will happen by building the appropriate infrastructure up front. Otherwise, we'll just end up having to go back in 10-20 years later to destroy what will have become a local landmark in order to build in what should have been there in the first place. Furthermore, building the infrastructure up front will itself act as a catalyst to spur development that is currently lacking around the park. Developers are infinitely more likely to build around areas where people have adequate access than in areas that may be more ecologically sensitive but lack basic infrastructure. Isn't a lack of planning and foresight why people are always criticizing the city in the first place?

I don't know if replying to my own reply is against the rules, but I had another thought occur to me on this subject. It seems ironic that in posting after posting on this site, everyone complains about the lack of urban-style development and growth in the center city, but when something does happen everyone complains about the type of development that is taking place.. It seems that we can't have it both ways; either we leave lots of open green space and put up with the resulting sprawl or we go dense with urban walking environments by building vertical and digging underground to conserve space. Houston is getting bigger by the day and it

It's important to remember that we're talking about downtown here, and not virgin national park land. I mean, keeping the surface park connected to the water table may be ideal, but I don't think building subsurface parking is a bad alternative should parking become necessary. It certainly beats the popular Houston alternative of paving the whole thing under and putting up a strip center. Furthermore, subsurface parking, tunnels, and freeways are done all of the time in other major cities. How many subway tunnels would you bet run under Central Park in NYC, for example? My point is that underground parking in this location, or even a freeway tunnel under Herman Park, wouldn't exactly be the end of the world if those things were to become necessary. Besides, how much downtown runoff water would you really want in the water table anyway?

I know this subject is way off topic, but history is my passion! Here's a picture taken from almost the exact same location in 1921 when the Erie Canal ran where the street is today. You can see the building in the background with the pointed roof (which I believe is city hall) in both the old and new pictures. In the new photo, it's directly behind the Times Square Building. Rochester could have been the San Antonio of the North...what a shame!!! Lesson for Houston: HISTORIC PRESERVARION IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!!!

Yeah...it was actually in a historically significant part of town when it was built, but most of the buildings around it were destroyed in the 1950's to make way for an inner loop expressway and a Communistic looking War Memiorial and Civic Center complex. In the 1930's through the 1950's the building actually had a subway station in the basement, until the subway itself was shut down in order to build the expressway. (With a 1950's population of around 300,000, Rochester was--I believe--at the time the smallest city in the country with a working subway line. The subway itself actually ran in the bed of the old Erie Canal, which ran through the center of the city until around the 1920's and is now the current route of I-490). Houston isn't the only city with a bad habit of destroying its own history and neglecting mass transit!

I know this was posted over a year ago, but I've just joined the forum. As a native Rochesterian, I can definitely tell you that's NOT city hall! That Art Deco gem is the Times Square building! (Not to be confused Times Square in Manhattan.)

I was browsing through your forum and thought you might be interested in the following link: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/panoramic_photo/ It takes you to the Library of Congress archives. Type "Houston" in the box in the upper left hand corner of the page, and the site will bring up a series of panoramic skyline photos from the turn of the century. As for postcard views, I know of at least one site that trades in such things (www.cardcow.com). Try this link for historic Houston postcards: http://www.cardcow.com/home.php?cat=65109 You can even read the notes on the backs of the cards and download favorite scenes as wallpaper. Great stuff!!