Big E

21 hours ago, The Hills said:

Why do you care so much about Austin vacancy rates? 

Because this is a thread about a building in Austin? Why would he ask about the vacancy rates in Chicago?

17 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Absolutely insane that they're widening the moat between downtown and the east side

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.

On 3/18/2024 at 6:44 AM, 004n063 said:

I remember at one point the renderings had only the area within the Helix as parkland, with buildings lining the full way. Now I see a surface parking lot and two parcels of landscaped park where buildings had once been planned.

Is this the new permanent vision? Or are they placeholders until they get organic demand for the other parcels?

Those areas are planned for future phases, I believe Phase III in particular.

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.

18 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Fill the area with S/1BR/2BR/3BR apartments renting at $700/$1000/$1500/$2000 a pop and you'd see plenty of demand, not to mention a much more vibrant and fiscally healthy city center.

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.

On 1/26/2024 at 8:01 AM, Houston19514 said:

How much unease is there in the Austin real estate community about the fast-approaching glut of office space and HUGE glut of downtown apartments?

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.

On 2/1/2024 at 11:01 AM, 004n063 said:

I have a vaguely formed notion of a probably-unpassable federal Livable Downtowns law that would allow (/encourage? require?) state and federal HUDs to eminent-domain lots in downtown districts that sit vacant or as parking lots for a certain number of years and construct/contract the construction of multifamily housing. But that would also create its own set of downstream effects, of which I can only imagine some.

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.

9 hours ago, bobruss said:

Monarch, For a city that has nothing going for it😜, like Dallas and Austin, we sure seem to get our share of World Series, NFL Super Bowls, Mens college Final Fours, World cup games, and now College football playoff championships. I guess we need to work a little harder and then we might get a few more opportunities.

Oh, and did I see where they are planning a St. Regis residence tower off Memorial Drive on the Welling property.

 

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.

11 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

Is there really that much excess ROW to being with? 

The Pierce Elevated isn't all that wide. Comparatively. 

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.

11 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

Imagining the area without Pierce, what is left is just regular city blocks, and it looks like the majority of these blocks have structures on them.

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.

11 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

My money is these lots will quickly be repaved for parking and the lots will slowly be redeveloped.

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.

On 12/23/2023 at 11:48 AM, HoustonIsHome said:

I have seen various angles of this proposal and zooming in I am not impressed once I get past the towers.

Dallas already has a poor street grid, even in its downtown. The proposals for this area are even more poorly integrated.

Further, this looks very suburban oriented. More like suburban office parks than the primary downtown of the 4th largest metro in the country.

GRB already feels more urban than KBH, and GRB will remain more urban even if all of this is built.

The Dallas convention proposal, as some have already mentioned is just a proposal. I like that Dallas thinks big, but the final results won't be as planned. And at best the area looks to be more like the Post Oak area than in a downtown. Looking at it again, it looks even less urban than Post Oak. The ground level of these buildings look like buildings you would find in Westchase, but definitely not a major downtown.

I am craving for glimpses of a more robust Astroville, but I just haven't seen enough to judge. My whacky dream for the area is to take the Astros/space theme and run away with it. Space ship shaped buildings, moving skywalks, space related restaurants, domed covered walkways with constellations, rides. I mean just pile on the space related cheese. Like these: 

 

Dunno how they would tie it in to the ballpark, but they could make it work.

Pretty sure all of those proposals, other than the Convention Center one aren't happening.

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I think there's a better chance most of it will become parkland (without a canal).

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).

14 minutes ago, samagon said:

do you think the holidays have impacted your traffic counts?

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.

21 minutes ago, Amlaham said:

I wish we could do this to the Pierce Elevated. Imagine if we could extend a canal from buffalo bayou down through midtown and create more greenways/ trials. One can only wish. 

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.

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Can you back up that it won’t? Of course that's the point of any debate or discussion; to weigh the evidence presented.

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.

8 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

If you don’t mind, I’d love to learn what evidence others have used to conclude Polk’s closure will not impact train-vehicular interactions rather than continue this cyclical discourse of you demanding I provide evidence before attempting to poke holes in it, calling me names in the process. 

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.

24 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

With all due respect, @Big E, I am not the first person write that removing Polk would negatively affect traffic vis-a-vis the rail line. I joined this site a few years ago, many years after this discussion topic was started. Polk’s importance was discussed long before I came around.

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.

27 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Posters have written that Polk’s closure won’t impact train-vehicular traffic interactions. I feel it’s more than fair to ask what evidence they used to come to that conclusion.

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.

28 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

If you have a legit question, I will happily answer.

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.

14 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

@Houston19514You're someone who relies on facts to make sound commentary. Would you mind sharing your evidence that the Polk closure won't negatively impact train-vehicular transit interactions? The last two times I made the request, you did not comment. 

If the evidence exists, I am more than happy to drop the topic altogether anytime someone brings up Polk. 

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.

10 minutes ago, Justin Welling said:

You're right, planners strive to make American cities more human scaled. But that does not mean we want them to be European.  Planners just want cities to be safer for all road users. We want people to have options moving around and to have a choice in their mode and a choice in where they live. We want cities to be livable. We want cities to be vibrant. And we want cities to be enjoyable. It is not that we want our cities to be more European, it is just we want our cities to be better than how they are today :). 

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.

4 minutes ago, JClark54 said:

Please re-read what you wrote that spurred my local governments have no authority response: The city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it.

If you'd asked what remedies are available, I'd have written requesting help from the FRA. You stated the city will have to take the railroads to task themselves over it. What can the city do to the railroads themselves? Nothing.

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. 

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Houston reps were at the same meeting and requested identical relief. Fire Cheif Sam Pena spoke by zoom, and Council member Robert Gallegos spoke in person. Chicago and Houston offered the same proposals, since Chicago proposing something is your focus. 

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.

2 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Why are you telling me to be specific and explain why things can't be done when you don't bother to do basic research?

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. 

2 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Local entities have no authority over the railroads.

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.

2 hours ago, Justin Welling said:

Which modern urban planner are you talking about? On behalf of urban planners, I dont think any of us think that way in the profession. Now, if you are referencing people on Twitter or Youtube who post content and commentary on cities, that is a different story. That group is vastly different than the people who actually work in the planning industry. 

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. 

6 hours ago, JClark54 said:

I never wrote both options are what Chicago is doing.

  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:

Quote

Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets.

So yes, Chicago is proposing at potentially either regulating freight traffic or having the railroads fund grad separations.

6 hours ago, JClark54 said:

One of the two options you listed literally can't be done at current.

Which one? Be specific, then explain why it can't be done.

3 hours ago, samagon said:

however, I know that based on your responses that I absolutely have more understanding of how this project is going to affect my daily commute and local traffic in the east end than you do.

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.

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'll say it again: for anybody on a bike (which is an ever-increasing number), losing Polk is significant. Fixable with proper lanes or paths along Leeland and Rusk, but right now the only safe crossings are Gray and Polk (and kindasorta Runnels). 

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.

5 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Thanks for the laugh @Big E. Specifically, "the city will have to take the railroads themselves to task over it." 

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.

5 hours ago, JClark54 said:

Where are you getting information about Leeland and Polk traffic volumes and patterns? 

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.

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.

2 hours ago, JClark54 said:

You're rationalizing the Polk crossing elimination on the grounds it transitions from two-way to one-way traffic beyond Avenida and the Dallas, Lamar, McKinney, and Walker connections? Those streets will not proceed beyond the GRB. 

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.

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Dovetailing off the will-or-won't-Polk-close-I-can't-be-bothered-to-look debate, I find it interesting certain regular posters here go to great lengths to write losing the Polk connection won't noticeably burden transit around freight rail without ever providing evidence to support their claims. 

Representatives from Chicago, an oft-discussed city on this forum, recently testified before the FRA that stopped miles-long freight trains have caused what they deemed as untenable transit harm. The remedy proposed was regulating freight train traffic in the city or compelling railroads to fund separations to alleviate those issues, if they planned to continue parking on public streets.

The tagline atop the PowerPoint presentation used during the public comment? "Could Chicago become the next Houston?" The speakers then stated Houston east end vehicular-pedestrian transit is a "catastrophe," especially when multiple lines are blocked simultaneously. Houston was used as a worst-case scenario that the FRA would be behooved to help Chicago avoid, not mirror. 

If planners at Chicago say Houston's freight rail-traffic infrastructure is catastrophically subpar and the FRA has ranked the Houston complex as the nation's most congested two years in a row, I'm going to value their opinion over someone who comments without familiarizing themself with the situation. 

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.