Jump to content

Big E

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    434

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Big E

  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.
  16. Big E
    We don't even know how much traffic carries all the way from downtown to the rail crossing, and vice versa. As I said before, the rail crossing is over a mile away from where Polk crosses the interstate. Traffic could disperse into any number of directions between those two points. And, as I already pointed out, Polk is a one way going Eastbound, away from the crossing, beyond Avenida, so its not carrying traffic all the way from downtown. Avenida never appears to be particularly busy outside of major events, and isn't designed to carry much traffic, so doubtful Polk's getting much traffic from there. You are the one who made the initial claim that removing Polk would negatively effect traffic vis-à-vis the rail line. So demonstrate how that's possible using real traffic analysis. First, you have to demonstrate how much traffic carries through on Polk from one side of the highway to the other in either direction. Then, we would have to determine how much traffic actually goes all the way to the crossing after crossing over from downtown, and vice versa. That's a lot of information and variables that you have failed to provide. Then, we would have to analyze how difficult it would be for traffic using Polk going into downtown to get to Polk on the other side post NHHIP and how difficult it would be for traffic to move from Leland to Polk going the opposite direction. Are you really prepared to analyze all this? In either case, what is material to the discussion is that Polk won't change beyond removing the crossing. Any problems with traffic taking Leland and running into a train are problems that already exist, because traffic can already default to Leland over Polk in either direction. Removing the highway crossing at Polk doesn't really effect this in any way.
  17. Big E
    And yet planners and commentators are always pointing specifically to Europe, and holding it up as some kind of gold standard, notwithstanding that actual vehicle traffic in cities like London can be downright abysmal. Nobody's really saying you can't have options. But America will never be Europe. Its an ideal we'll never reach at this point. If want to emulate anyone, I think it should be Japan, which basically had to completely rebuild after WWII. But that would mean encouraging policies that the urban planning types and politicians don't like here in America, like privately owned public transportation, and a zoning system that is highly permissive and not dedicated to extremely strict separation of specific zoning types, and "as-of-right" development permitting.
  18. Big E
    The cities are taking the railroads to task through the FRA. That's the process they need to go through. As far as I'm concerned, that is taking them to task.
  19. Big E
    So then Houston is already trying to do what I proposed it should try to be doing? Then why are we discussing this here then? Houston is already trying to handle the issue. Its a completely separate issue from the NHHIP. So, what your telling me is that you don't actually know which one Houston can't do, so your trying to deflect? You brought it up, you should be able to elaborate. If you can't elaborate on something you brought up, that's not on me. But the FRA does. So Houston is trying to take the railroads to task over the issues by going to the federal agency that has the authority to mandate they do something about it. They are still holding the railroads accountable, they just have to go through the proper channels to do it.
  20. Big E
    Its more a general mentality you see among the urban planning set, yes on Youtube and Twitter, but also from commentators, in blogs, in interviews and articles quoting urban planners, etc. They look at these European cities and say "why can't America be more like that? Why can these European cities be so much better and more "people scaled" while our cities were made for the car?" These cities weren't made for anything. They grew and developed organically over the course of decades or centuries into what they are are. American cities will never look like European cities because America is not even three centuries old. America just celebrated its bicentennial in 1976. It won't celebrate its Semiquincentennial till 2026. Most cities in Europe have existed since long before America did. American cities like Houston came of age when the car was becoming the primary method of transportation. European cities existed before the car was ever even thought of. Most of the policies today accused of pushing car usage (zoning for instance) were the result of urban planning coming in to vogue and attempting to artificially mold and shape cities towards a specific goal, in contravention of the traditional haphazard development that preceded it. They think they can plan their way out of America's car centric mentality and force the issue, when planning got us here in the first place.
  21. Big E
    That's the one thing that I can't really stand about modern urban planners. They look at cities like London and Paris and act like that that stuff just happened over night, even more so that it was planned. Most major cities in Europe are centuries old. They didn't just become what they are immediately. It literally happened over centuries of construction, with no planning at all, completely haphazardly. What they are trying to do is plan and mold modern cites into resembling these centuries old, chaotically built cities, trying to ape what they are, when what they are is whatever people at the time were capable of building. Houston's design, in that sense, fits right along with those cities, considering that Houston came of age during the era of the car, while all of those cities came of age back when the horse was the fastest method of travel. A city can't be designed into becoming London or Paris. You have to grow into that. Anything you attempt to design looks cookie cutter, and fake in comparison, which is what most major "mixed use" projects feel like. No matter how well they are designed, they feel staid and corporate, because they are. They can't recapture the vibrancy of an organically built neighborhood that came into existence over the course of a century.
  22. Big E
    Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension dude. I said what Chicago is LOOKING at doing, not what they ARE doing. And, yes, that is what you wrote. To quote YOU: So yes, Chicago is proposing at potentially either regulating freight traffic or having the railroads fund grad separations. Which one? Be specific, then explain why it can't be done. The point is that you've been so hyperbolic about this project and its perceived negative effects, and so obviously dead set against it from the beginning, that it's nearly impossible to take anything you say about the project seriously, since your personal animus towards it is so apparent. When your bias is this obvious, it weighs against considering your viewpoint.
  23. Big E
    All that will probably come down to what the city and state are planning to do regarding extending bike paths and what the sidewalks look like on the bridges. Seems like all the roads are getting new bridges, even the ones with existing bridges, so it will ultimately come down to what the sidewalks look like. In any case, TxDOT have made Bike and pedestrian mobility a major part of their design work, so take solace in that. I mean, at the end of the day, that is what it's going to come down to. Either the city takes the railroads to task for excessive idling, or the city gets around to burying the crossing roads, maybe go after the railroads to make them foot the bill for it, and both of those options are, by your admission, what Chicago is looking at doing. Either way, its an issue that is beyond the scope of the NHHIP to actually address. Its just a matter of looking at the existing road network as its currently designed, particularly directions and capacity. Then taking into account the changes brought upon by the NHHIP and comparing. Its rough estimating, but I'm assuming that TxDOT and the City of Houston have both looked at actual more concrete numbers regarding usage, and since both have ultimately signed off on this design and neither made a big deal about Polk (the recent presentations regarding potential changes to the design didn't even mention Polk), they clearly believe that the network won't be severely impacted by losing this one connection.
  24. Big E
    First of all, before I address JClark's post directly, some corrections and clarifications. I did in fact locate the NHHIP website and, via said website, the most up to date schematics. Based on those schematics: 1. The Leland crossover has in fact been turned into a two way crossover, vs. the one way it currently is. The second crossing leading into Bell Street has been removed, but the reason for that is... 2. There is now a freeway offramp leading off of I-69 that directly connects to Bell Street, thus giving direct freeway access to downtown. This is the real reason that one can no longer go from Leland directly to Bell. 3. I was mistaken and there is no crossover as Dallas. However, instead of that, the crossover at Lamar has a dedicated U-Turn lane, so traffic coming down Polk can easily U-turn at the Lamar crossover and continue on to Polk without having to sit at an additional light (assuming there is no light at the Dallas junction, which there shouldn't be since Dallas only meets on one side). Thus, connectivity between Polk on both sides is preserved. What I'm telling you is that there is no Eastbound traffic on Polk past Avenida. Most eastbound traffic heading into EaDo already defaults to Leland unless its specifically coming down Avenida, based on downtown street patters. So, for Eastbound traffic in most of downtown, nothing really changes. Traffic coming down Avenida can just take Jackson down to Leland, which is only three blocks. Westbound traffic can use the new crossover at Lamar to reach Polk with minimal difficulty. In other words, the actual inconvenience to local traffic is minimal. This is really neither here nor there to the Polk crossover issue. The issues regarding the rail lines and their idling trains already exist and will continue to exist regardless of whether or not the NHHIP is built or not, unless separate remedies are found for them. Its really beyond the scope of the NHHIP to worry about them. The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.
  25. Big E
    Ok, so, instead of scouring the internet for the schematics, I decided to go back and take a look at the 3D presentation of the NHHIP that TxDOT posted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUFK6KcBbGA Its six years old at this point, but I don't think any drastic changes have been made to the project since to render it obsolete in regards to the portion of the project we are talking about. Going by that video, yes the crossover at Polk is being removed. Also being removed are the crossovers at Ruiz and Runnels. But, according to that schematic, new crossovers are being added at the streets that run between Polk and Rusk (Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker). This will be achieved by extending Hamilton around the back of the convention center and cantilevering it over the freeway, thus reconnecting the two disconnected portions of that road and creating one long continuous frontage road, and the new crossovers will tie into that road, with the freeway cap being built between the crossovers. So, for the connectivity that is lost, new connectivity is gained. @JClark54 One thing that bothers me about your claims regarding Polk, however. You claim that the loss of this road will negatively effect traffic. But Polk is a one-way street going westbound when it runs downtown beyond Avenida. So anyone trying to go Eastbound, back into EaDo will have to take Leland regardless, unless they specifically come down Avenida. Most of the traffic probably already defaults to Leland for that reason alone. The only people who will be possibly inconvenienced will be those who crossing from EaDo to downtown, but by the time they have to make the decision, the train tracks are a non-factor. Firstly, you appear to be correct that the Leland-Bell connection is removed, but this may be mitigated if the new Leland crossing carries traffic in both directions; the only thing that would be lost would be a direct connection to Bell. And regardless if it doesn't, it's further mitigated by the fact that the Pease Street crossing remains, allowing one to still crossover into downtown, while a new connection is added at Dallas, allowing traffic to crossover and come back down to Bell or Polk. Second, whether you personally consider the Preston connection "useless" is irrelevant. It is a connection between Downtown and EaDo and it will remain after construction is finished. Third, I doubt you are more "in tune" with the effects of this project anymore than anyone else here, regardless of whether or not you even live close to the area. Anyone can look at what's added, what's lost, and come to their own conclusions about this project.
×
×
  • Create New...