Jump to content

Big E

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    434

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

1,497 profile views

Big E's Achievements

(12/32)

  • Frequent HAIFer

Recent Badges

864

Reputation

  1. Big E
    They pretty much have to. I-35 is an undrivable mess most of the day, and hasn't had any work done in well over 30 years, when they double decked the freeway in 1975, other than removing some of the exits for the lower deck because traffic made it too dangerous to keep them. It's a freeway built to 60s standards handling 2020s traffic.
  2. Big E
    Those areas are planned for future phases, I believe Phase III in particular.
  3. Big E
    They should really go for the historic tax credits, whatever strings are attached. That's the only way I see this getting done in this economic climate.
  4. Big E
    Once again, if there was a massive demand for that level of development, it would have already happened. The fact is, there just isn't enough latent demand to justify the expense of downtown redevelopment in most cases. Just like lack of office demand has curtailed the building of new office buildings. While there is a demand for residential development, its all happening outside of downtown, in areas where its cheaper to build, in more established or more popular up and coming neighborhoods. Downtown will continue to see piecemeal development for as long as this holds. You'd do better praying for another oil-fueled skyscaper boom.
  5. Big E
    Not enough to actually stop construction. My feeling is that all of this is largely speculative building at this point, like what Houston went through prior to the Oil Bust. Maybe they are counting on Silicon Valley's bubble bursting soon, and many companies relocating outside of California so save money.
  6. Big E
    An attempt to pass a federal law would probably be unconstitutional and be considered federal overreach. Eminent Domain would be expensive and counter productive for cities, and the courts take a dim view on eminent domain for the sole purpose of economic development. The fact is, if there was an economic drive to redevelop these lots, they'd already be redeveloped. The lack of demand for downtown development is why most of them still exist.
  7. Big E
    Considering all the world class, roofed stadiums Houston has, it makes sense that Houston gets a lot sports events; Houston has the venues for it.
  8. Big E
    Basically what @texan said. Taken altogether, its a lot of land, especially for being at the center of the city. You could build a sizable skyscraper on any one of those blocks. When you look at the rest of each block, you realize that, outside of the two highrises, the majority of the blocks are parking lots, one is a parking garage, and two are are occupied by low rise commercial buildings (one of which is a car dealership) whose owners would probably be happy to sell out to a new developer. A Methodist church and low rise, unassuming apartment complex make up the remaining two blocks. There are already parking lots under the Pierce Elevated. If they are just tearing down the structure, the parking lots would just be left intact and continue to be used to make money.
  9. Big E
    Pretty sure all of those proposals, other than the Convention Center one aren't happening.
  10. Big E
    It should be remembered that those pictures were merely one idea that was presented. Nothing concrete has been said specifically about what they are going to do with the excess ROW created by removing the Pierce elevated, or what will actually be placed on the I-69/I-45 cap (the cap itself is being built so that buildings and development can happen on it).
  11. Big E
    I mean, its the 20th, not the 25th. Its not like everything is closed today. If it was Christmas Eve or Christmas Day, yeah, that would make sense. But its just a normal weekday.
  12. Big E
    The most that's gonna happen to that land is that its going to become a series of parking lots for a few years till developers scoop them up and develop them. They were throwing around this idea for a "skypark" but that looked like an overly ambitious pipe dream and nobody's even mentioned that in any official capacity in months. Extending a canal from Buffalo Bayou to the location of the Pierce elevated isn't possible because the Downtown Connector will block the route, not even getting into the issue of existing utilities and such that would have to be dug up.
  13. Big E
    Once again, you can't prove a negative, or the absence of something. Just like you can't walk into an empty spotless, room, and prove that a murder never took place there at any point in its history. You haven't even established traffic patterns on Polk between Houston and EaDo. You've offered no information to back up your claim. The onus is on one making a claim to prove it. The baseline assumption is that the removal of Polk's crossover will have no effect on the rail crossing, and both Houston and TxDOT have not shown that they are operating outside this baseline idea. I've already given reasons for why that would be, looking at the design of the streets, street directions, distance, etc. If you've got cards to play, now's the time to play it partner. The ball is in your court.
  14. Big E
    I don't recall calling you names. I merely asked for evidence. Usually people who don't have evidence, try some form of deflection from this fact, like claiming "Well, if I give you evidence, you'll just poke holes into it". Of course that's the point of any debate or discussion; to weigh the evidence presented. You were the one who made the claim regarding Polk's closure and its effect on the train situation. I'm merely asking you to back it up. If you can't do that, just say so.
  15. Big E
    The only two people who I've seen harping on it are you and Samagon, and you are the only two people who have been harping on it lately besides that one other guy, but he complained about how much its removal would effect bikes specifically, and that had nothing to do with you and Samagon's complaining about how it would effect the rail road crossing. You can't prove a negative. If you have some impact study hidden around proving that it will, in fact, negatively effect traffic as far it effects the train crossing, then produce it. Otherwise, you're complaining about something you don't even know will be an issue yet, and that you have no proof will be an issue. I already posited questions to you in my last comment which you have not deigned to answer. You offered no real evidence to back up your initial assertion that getting rid of the Polk crossing at the interstate will effect the crossing at the rail line. I'm giving you the chance to backup that assertion. If you can't actually back it up, I've got no other recourse but to dismiss it, barring some other evidence being presented.
×
×
  • Create New...