Jump to content

Texasota

Full Member
  • Content Count

    1677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Texasota last won the day on October 21 2012

Texasota had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2037 Excellent

About Texasota

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I want them to paint those deep windows frames a fun color.
  2. You do know that thousands of people live within a small radius, right? And that there are, in fact, poor people in Midtown and Montrose? Holman/Hawthorne is a major route for people commuting by bike from affordable housing in garage apartments, '30s era small aprtement buildings, and '50s and '60s era garden apartments in Montrose to HCC, UH, TSU, and jobs in midtown and downtown. The completion of the Braxos St and Austin St bike lanes, in combination with the removal of this ramp and its replacement with off-street multiuse paths, will help formalize that connection and make the route safer. Almost as importantly, it will make the route (and in particular, this major connection point) *feel* a lot safer, which will mean more people will use it who might otherwise be afraid to. Slightly changing someone's commute isn't regressive. If you can't get to work because your car breaks down, you can't afford to fix it, and you don't have a safe alternative? That's *actually* regressive.
  3. More programming would probably require MMD to throw some money at it, which I imagine they eventually would. To me the obvious precedent here is Bastop Street in EADO which has been gradually upgraded over time - even if you think this would need more programming that's something that could come later. But this really does a few things - 1. it creates a park (even if it's just trees and grass to start) at a location that I believe is genuinely well placed 2. it creates a very high quality, pleasant pedestrian and cycling connection between Holman and Brazos 3. it creates a public area for all the residential construction nearby 4. it replaces the existing wall between Montrose and Midtown with a shared gathering space I really don't understand the opposition to this plan. Partly because it sounds wonderful, but also because I have literally never used this ramp. Not when I lived in Avondale. Not when I lived in Midtown. Not when I lived in Riverside. Not when I lived in west Montrose. Not when I lived in SugarLand. Never. Not once.
  4. Build the bike plan!
  5. So you're in one the of remaining little cottages (and not one of the mediocre townhomes across the street)? I don't think your views would have been spare by any kind of construction on this lot, but they've only shown views from White Oak so far. I think we need to see a site plan to know exactly how it will affect Wrightwood.
  6. Oh of course. Most (though definitely not all) of the townhomes are built just as poorly, especially once suburban builders realized how profitable they were and entered the market. My point was more that there is plenty of demand for homes on smaller lots in the city, but because of the difference in the vale of land (and because demand is so high), a family that can only afford, say, a $200,000 home has far more options out in the new developments, and that is because the way these new developments are financed does not fully capture and pass on their true costs. This is also despite the fact that housing costs in Houston proper are still relatively low compared to other cities.
  7. Because townhomes (which generally have a garage to store stuff in) inside the loop sell poorly? Houses built out in the boonies sell because they're affordable, and they're affordable because they're cheaply built *and* the cost of land is basically nil. Not to say that there aren't people who want that lifestyle, but there are plenty of people who would be happy to buy a townhome inside the loop *if* they could get into a "good" school and pay the same as they would out in the boonies. There are also plenty of people willing to pay more; again, townhomes inside the loop are selling just fine. The problem is that the relative cheapness of houses out in the middle of nowhere is the result of pricing *only* reflecting the cost of land and not the cost of new infrastructure or the impact on regional resilience and future flooding.
  8. Exactly this. It is past time we stop valuing "growth" for its own sake and start asking where we want that growth to be.
  9. ...why not both? (obviously the answer is money) But seriously, with both you would essentially have an express and a local. As defined here they really serve different people. It will be interesting to see how much variation there is between different BOOST corridors. Maybe Gessner, given its enormous ROW, can get a few more MetroRapid/BRT features.
  10. A *real* aquarium, with at least a vaguely scientific mission, would be fantastic. Maybe a partnership between the Museum of Natural Science and some other entity. Or almost a "teaching" aquarium with a university association?
  11. Ok, I think you might have been right - we each read what we *thought* the other one was saying into what was basically a general agreement. What I really latched onto was your referencing Hawthorne - there's just no way to use that (or Missouri or any other parallel street, unless you *maybe* want to mess with Fairview, but I would rather that be used for bike infrastructure) for any kind of through connection without destroying the neighborhood. And just to clarify what I mean by "destroying the neighborhood" - I actually mean less the buildings than the scale of the blocks and streets. Montrose, as a street grid, is built to an urban scale, and that's an irreplaceable feature. But even more fundamentally than that, I think we need to talk about replacing existing traffic lanes with transit lanes. And I do think pushing through a parallel street would be fundamentally destructive to the neighborhood. Lovett is a special case because it is already absurdly wide, but there's nothing remotely comparable to that west of its intersection with Westheimer. For cars, I am fully in support of increasing connectivity (as in, transforming Lovett into useable street), but I am actually completely opposed to increasing capacity. Capacity should be addressed by replacing low-efficiency infrastructure (car lanes) with higher efficency (bus lanes)>
  12. Yeah I know; I'm just arguing that you don't need the couplet. Lovett has enough capacity on its own, and I think Westheimer west of that *mostly* does as well.
×
×
  • Create New...