Jump to content

AnTonY

Full Member
  • Posts

    127
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AnTonY

  1. 9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

    I wouldn't say they're ugly but the western view does sort of have a dated 80's look, where you only see an array of sleek 70's-80's buildings, whereas the northern/bayou view shows different phases of downtown's history and is more like a traditional city skyline with lots of little buildings in addition to the big ones. I personally prefer the view from due north, coming down I-45, which is kind of the best of both. The western view is still the favorite of Greater Houston Partnership-type promo stuff, since they're trying to attract businesses who want a "clean" city.

     

    Yes, anywhere with a northern component allows great view of all of Houston's true density and skyline collection. The northwestern view you describe is also a good frame, especially w/ that "Be Someone" sign. I like the combination of JP Morgan Tower and TC Energy Center front - it creates a somewhat "gothic" aesthetic, and interacts well with 609 Main.

    The problem I have with the western shot is how spaced out and uninspiring it makes downtown look. It hides all the interesting buildings and features (including TC Energy Center's front), and makes everything look dated and blocky. One Shell Place and Heritage Plaza had interest construction inspirations and technique, but their executions look quite boring and blocky, unfortunately. They help hold frame from the northwestern view, though.

    Yet the Williams Tower is perhaps my favorite building in all of Houston, despite that also being built in the 80s. It still stands out as quite modern even in today's context. The narrowness of the tower probably assists in making it look sleek.

    • Like 1
  2. @samagon

     

    It's all been pretty chill. I simply expressed preference with for the Gus location, but I still very much enjoyed those Botanic development photos taking place at Glenbrook.

     

    My preference for Gus was based strictly on proximity to the population mass of Houston - the area was more integrated, and even had a direct light rail connection. Whereas the Glenbrook location is a bit farther off, though not totally suburban. I don't really care for any golf course, quite frankly, and wouldn't lose sleep if they all got replaced with something else.

     

    You do have a good case regarding proximity to freeways, but I supposed that depends on where specifically the garden would have been placed at Gus (closer to Brays would have been farther way). Also, some years back, there was a suggestion that called for alteration along the nearby freeway - I believe it was to sink the entire stretch, underground, if I'm not mistaken.

     

    Nevertheless, as mentioned before, I very much enjoy the development of the park even at Glenbrook. And as some other posts mentioned, Houston seems to have quite some plans regarding Hobby and the entire Eastern End. Looking forward to seeing what comes of them.

     

     

    • Like 3
  3. 17 minutes ago, kennyc05 said:

    Yep I wish it was connected to Hermann how the Atlanta Gardens are connected to Piedmont. I feel like this park is too far from the core 🤦🏽‍♂️

     

    That's definitely all true. Though the definition of Houston's core might eventually expand/shift eastward, depending on how successful the Buffalo Bayou development projects are.

    • Like 5
  4. Going back through images, you can really see how good the Buffalo Bayou features the buildings, even in very narrow areas near downtown. So it would be even more impressive if the city continues these types of eastward development projects, where the waterways are wider (to handle huge ships, and lose the bank spillage issues).

     

    In a way, it sort of reminds me of the River Spree in Berlin, Germany. You look at that cityscape, and can follow the entire length of the developments from the very narrow ends of the river to the very wide ends.

    • Like 1
  5. On 4/9/2019 at 11:18 AM, Reefmonkey said:

    Smearing me in absentia to try to distract from the fact that you're making a fool of yourself in yet another discussion - you're a gutless tool.

     

    I already schooled you in two other threads, looks like we're going to have a three-peat. 😊

  6. On 4/4/2019 at 9:56 PM, august948 said:

     

    FINALLY...now we're getting somewhere.  So here's the problem.  Let's say the need for oil and related chemicals goes away.  A doubtful scenario, but let's make pretend that will happen.  Are we also talking about eliminating the port as well (the non-oil and chemical part)?  I would think so, since the goal is to return the bayou to it's natural or some other similar state.  Move all the oil and gas and port activities to Galveston or somewhere up or down the coast.  When that happens, the economy of Houston will pretty much collapse.  Now it'd be nice to say it would be replaced by battery factories or such, but the likelihood of that is pretty low.  Why would they all relocate here to build our economy back up?  The reason Houston exists in it's current state is the industry along the ship channel.  That industry is here because we're at the place where the pipelines and railroads meet the sea.  That's also why the higher end development has historically trended west and north.  Those are the directions AWAY from the industries in question.

     

    So, any way you slice it, whether it happens quickly or over a long period of time, in all likelihood Houston would drop dramatically in population and economic terms under this scenario.  When that happens, we won't be able to support many of the things that make Houston a fun place to live.  Large swaths of the city will be desolated and the crime rate will go up (see Detroit, MI).  I think that is way too high a price to pay for a lovely riparian vision.  The east side is already redeveloping to it's natural limits at the edge of the industrial areas.  As someone else stated, that really makes downtown more central, which supports the already obvious renaissance downtown has had in the last couple of decades.

     

    It's fun to imagine what could be, but part of that is also imagining the intended and unintended consequences.

     

    Of course, this assumes that the city and business leaders would just let it happen. But the business leaders are quite smart, I'm sure they'd figure out a way to pivot and persist during that shift. Even if it means having to acquire new startups. The city would also have to invest in itself to both attract the talent, and/or create it.

  7. On 4/4/2019 at 7:24 PM, Texasota said:

    And no, I still don't really understand what "the location of downtown is going to get inferior real quick" is supposed to mean. Are you saying that improvements on the East End will somehow have a negative impact on Downtown itself?

     

    If anything I would expect the opposite to be true, especially as the Allen Parkway and Washington Avenue corridors (and Midtown) continue to develop. Increasingly Downtown will actually the locus of a vibrant central city, rather than just one cluster of office highrises among many.

     

    It depends on how far in the future you are looking. I agree with your point in regards to the nearer terms. But when more eastward bayou developments like East River crop up, you're going to end up with more of an urban-nature integration to a degree not afforded as strongly in the current hotspot of Downtown/Midtown. Such recreation is important in what makes an area desirable. 

     

    On 4/4/2019 at 7:50 PM, kbates2 said:

    The Eastside blooming would only serve to make the location of downtown more meaningful (being the center of so much as opposed to the edge).  

     

    But suppose that boom goes all the way along the Bayou, to Harrisburg or beyond? Then the city fabric becomes quite linear/elongated, to a point that Downtown is a bit farther west of the midline.

     

  8. 2 hours ago, august948 said:

    You mean this kind of bloviating?

     

    Nope, that's a clear, solid point.

     

    3 hours ago, bobruss said:

    I don't know why I'm getting into this, but ok  I'll take the bait.

    First the only thing that has to be moved is the confluence of White Oak Bayou with Buffalo Bayou to the eastern side of downtown.

    This has been discussed and is one of the best options to solve the only problem with downtown.

    Why move downtown from its original location of over 150 years.

    If White oak was re-channeled to the east side of downtown where there is plenty of room for it to spread out then we wouldn't have the Fannin and SanJacinto 

    area bottleneck  on Buffalo Bayou to slow the flow, and cause backup in downtown.

    Also it would create a new area for development in the near north downtown island that would be formed by the moving of White Oak..

    All of the infrastructure and civic centers are downtown. Not the Uptown satellite city.

    Besides there was no serious thought for a well laid out masterplan of the Galleria area. It was just plunked down on some open land and has grown into a very unmanaged area until recently. Not even a park for all of those Uptown galleria residents , and don't cry Memorial Park. You and no one else that lives in those high rises are going to walk their pooch 3 miles for a potty break.

    The argument for the east is pretty much a no brainer. You tell Exxon, Shell, Goodyear, Rohm & Haas, Lubrizol, ITC, etc. etc. etc. that they need to move to Corpus Christi, because we think we went the wrong direction with the city. A lot of that beautiful land is so poisoned by chemicals and industrial manufacturing that I'm sure the ground in some areas glows at night .

    Now I won't argue that it is pretty land but that's not the way the Allen Bros. planned it and I guess "Go West", in America, means go west. Look at every major city in at least Texas and for the most part the majority of growth has occurred on the western and northern sides  of all of the big cities.

    You don't just say I want downtown to move because its not as good a spot as somewhere else. Just rectify the problem.

     

    The problem is that you people on this site don't understand the concept of nuance. All my original point suggested was that revitalization of the bayou would radically shift the designated desirable area from west-focused to east-focused, which would cause implications on the desirability of the current downtown location. Somehow, that got spun into that I'm suggesting actual physical movement of downtown.

     

    I really don't care anything about the west side, quite frankly, there's just nothing to it naturally. That goes whether we are talking about stepford-suburbs like Katy, or the urban-planning mess that is the Galleria. 

     

    And I already acknowledge the current unfortunate status of the East side. But nevertheless, that area holds, by far, the best potential when it comes to integrating Houston with its natural features. No longer is the bayou a dingy brown creek that overspills the banks with every flood, it's an actual riparian feature that frames the land and provides significant recreation. Combine that with San Jacinto Monument and Battleship Texas, and Houston reconnects all the pieces that grant it sense of place: it finally becomes a true Bayou City. So yes, the East is indeed slave to toxic industry now, but as soon as clean energy sources hit greater uses, I can easily see that land being reclaimed in a vein similar to the revitalization of certain Rust Belt cities (i.e. Pittsburgh) after steel and automotive industries were outsourced.

  9. 4 hours ago, bobruss said:

    I think this train has left the tracks.

     

    Of course it has, people are too busy dancing around the answer and bloviating to infinity rather than acknowledging the point and its nuances. Reefmonkey did this a lot, and it really kills the quality of discussion.

  10. 9 hours ago, august948 said:

     

    Well, it's true the east side does have certain amenities that differentiate us from Dallas....

     

    It the west side becomes less popular, that'll means less traffic.  I'll be looking forward to that.

     

    It's just funny how the city ended up focusing itself on the tiniest, dingiest, most sensitive portions of its waterway. But lo and behold, the parts that are actually grand and impressive are wasted on pollutive industry.

     

    Reclaiming the bayou will definitely be a true game-changer for the city when it comes to connecting people here with the outdoors.

    • Like 1
  11. 2 hours ago, august948 said:

    Since the population center of Houston has actually moved westward over time, I vote we demolish downtown for parkland and rebuild downtown at City Centre. 

     

    Who's with me?

     

    Nah, the west will become inferior too. The ammenities offered wouldn't differentiate Houston from Dallas (which people seem to hate). The east, at least, offers real natural potential.

     

    4 hours ago, kbates2 said:

    Right, clearly the location of downtown should be moved east or west due to upcoming pushes.  Move abominations in the opposite direction. PrObLeM sOlVeD.

     

    No physical movement, just reshuffling of population mass. Especially easier to do in Houston since the growth follows the market.

     

    1 hour ago, gmac said:

     

    How about we DON'T rebuild it and just have businesses located in widespread places? "Downtown" is such an outdated idea and causes so many issues.

     

    I would like to have a big park with a nice water feature for all the birds and wildlife where City Hall is 😁

     

    The concept of a "downtown" is a strictly American phenomenon, anywho. Most modern cities around the globe are polycentric.

  12. 2 hours ago, august948 said:

     

    Perhaps we should flatten downtown and plant a forest there?

     

    Less concrete, more trees, great shade for the pedestrians in the heat of Texas.

     

    28 minutes ago, Texasota said:

     

    What do you mean by location?

     

    The spot that downtown is located.

  13. With upcoming pushes farther east along with bayou with East River and the Partnership, the location of downtown is going to get inferior real quick. The abominations of the 70s-80s already seem to have done much of the work, anywho.

  14. On 3/25/2019 at 3:10 PM, mollusk said:

     

    Oh yeah, sorry I missed this part, it was buried in the vast amounts of stalwart reactionarism:

     

    While the whooping crane is endangered, the territory is not endemic to Texas, and nesting grounds are on the immediate shoreline, not the coastal prairie. Conversion to forest won't harm this species.

     

    Now the prairie chicken, that is exactly the type of species I was referring to, endemic to the region and dependent upon the habitat. It seems though, that much of the remaining population is already confined to the wildlife refuge this is protecting them. Therefore, the conversion can still go through, so long it ignores the areas of protected land.

  15. Quote

    “As the climate changes, severe droughts are likely to become more common, and we shouldn’t miss the opportunities to influence the hydrologic cycle in a beneficial way using trees,” he said.

     

    "After oceans, forests are the most efficient sources of precipitation," said Ellison, who studied the world’s major river basins to identify what proportion of water vapour came from evapo-transpiration from terrestrial plants as compared with the seas.

     

    Evapo-transpiration is a very large component of rain generation – on average about 50% in summer across the globe, and 40% on an annual basis,” he said.

     

    ”We know that trees in forests are the most efficient evapo-transpirators out there. If we compare them to say agricultural land cover, trees can evapo-transpirate twice as much as agricultural crops and about twice as much as water body surfaces.

     

    https://forestsnews.cifor.org/10316/make-it-rain-planting-forests-to-help-drought-stricken-regions?fnl=en

     

    So @Reefmonkey, looks like it does "follow the plow" after all 😏

  16. 3 hours ago, Ross said:

    Biodiversity improves? No, it's just different. The entire coastal plain's flora and fauna evolved to live in the prairie environment, not forests. The flora and fauna of the estuaries and bays evolved to live in an environment fed by the prairies. Why do you want to destroy that when there's plenty of forest not far away, growing on soils that support forests?

     

    The biodiversity of the land would indeed improve. The presence of forests gives room for the shade tolerant organisms to establish present.

     

    Meanwhile, there are still more than enough clearings necessary for the prairie species. Plus, this isn't the Amazon, where there are actually thousands of endemic creatures found nowhere else on the planet that depend specifically on the habitat: the organisms of the coastal prairie are mostly just your basic species found in wide areas of the Southern US, and so already can handle wide varieties of habitat anyway. That lack of endemism is essentially what nails the coffin on the prairies usefulness regarding my point.

     

    The estuaries and bays would also improve in biodiversity, since their clarity would be improved due to lesser runoff from the forest soils.

     

     

  17. 5 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

    Ah, looks like you edited out the "deep in your heart" histrionics and replaced it with a completely baseless accusation of reasoning errors. I'd say let's have a show of hands as to which one of us is off base here, but the replies and likes in this thread have already established that.

     

    Oh look, yet another reasoning error from you (see: appeal to popularity). You also seem to be calling the kettle black again.  Nah, you're the joke here, and so is your master's degree. No amount of amens from the peanut gallery will change that.

  18. 4 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

    That’s pure gibberish. And you ARE wrong here. You haven’t actually articulated a “vision “ or “grand plan“, your idea echoes the shortsighted  “rain follows the plough” cargo cult-type reasoning that lead to the Dust Bowl. You’re displaying blatant confirmation bias; because you don’t like the look of the prairie and because you don’t want to “lose” an Internet argument, you’re scouring the web for information that you interpret as supporting your position while overlooking and attempting to minimize any contradictory information. But  again you fall back on accusing people of “defensivess” for calling you out on your BS. “Troll” may or may not be overused, but in your case it’s warranted. 

     

    Yup, you're definitely trying too hard there. And I wouldn't start talking about reasoning errors if I were you, because you've made quite the lionshare throughout both of these threads.

  19. 14 hours ago, Reefmonkey said:

    For all your throwing around the stupid word “flex” to describe my comments, all you’re doing is talking circles around the issue to try to distract people from the hole you’ve dug for yourself, just like in the Galveston water topic. Whoever said was right, you’re just a troll. 

     

    Okay, give us a number of how much you think it would cost to convert all the prairie prairie soil into soil suitable for forests. 

     

    8 hours ago, Luminare said:

    I'm just going to walk by and drop this off. Are these people wrong then @AnTonY? Thats a lot of people who have a great wealth of useful experience to be wrong. Just look at all that prairie they want to implement.

     

    Memorial Park Master Plan:

     

    https://issuu.com/memorialparkhouston/docs/mph_mpbook_final_small_webversion_a_c7f9e7eed3d03c

     

    It's not that anyone has been wrong about this, just that there's a sheer lack of vision. It's one thing to learn and understand that information through a Master's level education, but it's a completely different ball game when it comes to taking that information, and connecting it all together as pieces of the grand plan.

     

    Troll is an overused word, by the way, which reeks of compensation and defensiveness in the face of defeat.

×
×
  • Create New...