Jump to content

McGowen Green


burlesona

Recommended Posts

I posted a few thoughts on my blog today about the superblock and how it could be remade.

Here's the key thought... I think it's really important that they extend Tuam to keep east-west connectivity alive. This is especially critical for pedestrians.

But if you don't have a continuous green, then it doesn't make a lot of sense for all five blocks to be a park.

So, my thought is, the city should take the southern two blocks (south of Tuam) and put in a new mega YMCA. They could then swap properties with the Downtown YMCA, and that site could be redeveloped.

Then, if they build parking in the model of Discovery Green downtown and allowed the surrounding blocks to share this parking, that could FINALLY spark the total transformation of that corner of Midtown.

This is long overdue, I think. The center of Midtown really should be the definitive heart of urban residential living in Houston. Having a big park with playing fields and the YMCA with community meeting space and fitness facilities would be a real win for the neighborhood.

There's a rendering of my concept on my blog: http://neohouston.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/mcgowen-green/.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, also leave comments on the blog if you enjoyed reading it! Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

Lots of reasons... it's existing infrastructure framework and proximity to downtown for starters. Keep in mind I said the center of urban living in Houston. I don't mean that it should be the only urban residential place, but that it should be the area the city focuses on improving first as the centerpiece and example for future areas to follow. I think areas around Uptown could follow eventually, and possible some of the Washington Ave. corridor, and possible some of the area south of the Medical Center.

Honestly, though, there aren't a lot of places well suited for dense urban living in Houston. Midtown is one of the few, and it's the farthest along in its redevelopment. The city has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from investing in its core, and residential development helps keep retail alive and crime down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted a few thoughts on my blog today about the superblock and how it could be remade.

Here's the key thought... I think it's really important that they extend Tuam to keep east-west connectivity alive. This is especially critical for pedestrians.

But if you don't have a continuous green, then it doesn't make a lot of sense for all five blocks to be a park.

So, my thought is, the city should take the southern two blocks (south of Tuam) and put in a new mega YMCA. They could then swap properties with the Downtown YMCA, and that site could be redeveloped.

Then, if they build parking in the model of Discovery Green downtown and allowed the surrounding blocks to share this parking, that could FINALLY spark the total transformation of that corner of Midtown.

This is long overdue, I think. The center of Midtown really should be the definitive heart of urban residential living in Houston. Having a big park with playing fields and the YMCA with community meeting space and fitness facilities would be a real win for the neighborhood.

There's a rendering of my concept on my blog: http://neohouston.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/mcgowen-green/.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, also leave comments on the blog if you enjoyed reading it! Thanks!

Chevron is already buying the old YMCA downtown. YMCA already has plans for a replacement facitlity near the Pierce Elevated. The city has nothing to do with this.

I think that the land around the future fire museum would be excellent for outdoor space. I'm not sure who owns the superblock, but I'm pretty sure it's not the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of reasons... it's existing infrastructure framework and proximity to downtown for starters. Keep in mind I said the center of urban living in Houston. I don't mean that it should be the only urban residential place, but that it should be the area the city focuses on improving first as the centerpiece and example for future areas to follow.
The City has put tons of money in the area already. It's not the job of the city to improve private properties. Maybe if it was public housing they would step in. that would be great access to the public transportation system for those who really NEED it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, my thought is, the city should take the southern two blocks (south of Tuam) and put in a new mega YMCA. They could then swap properties with the Downtown YMCA, and that site could be redeveloped.

From my understanding, the superblock is owned by Camden. Unless the city plans to use eminent domain, my guess is that Camden (when the economy turns around) will eventually build a mixed use type thing w/ shops, entertainment, and residential. They have already started building Camden Travis across the street. I just hope that whatever they do with the superblock is great, and doesn't end up being something you would see out in the suburbs. I also hope they include green space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Camden owns about half the superblock, which is four blocks long. The Midtown Management District owns the other half. (I could be wrong and it's the Midtown Redevelopment Authority that owns the other half; I've just forgotten.) This means half is already under public ownership. There is an arrangement between the two entities that basically says Midtown has to agree with Camden's plans, and that's been the sticking point. Neither of the entities wants to see a park there, which is very shortsighted. Ultimately some deal that gives Camden access to some other land that will appreciate like crazy if the City puts a park on the superblock would benefit all. The Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone would be the primary beneficiary because all the surrounding property would go up in value and presumably see a lot of development.

Kevin Shanley, who did the original McGowen Green drawings, saw Tuam as the core pedestrian place, continuing through the park. We actually talked, perhaps facetiously, about the idea of the Ramblas coming into play there.

There is more on our proposal at the McGowen Green website. I'm excited to see some interest revived in this obvious idea. All of the underground garage business and everything else is in the original proposal. At one time, there might have been an excuse not to do it because Discovery Green, a concept that came along much later but used all the same arguments, would be the focus of the Mayor's urban park plan. Now that's a done deal and growing, and it's time to move on to McGowen Green, which would be a very different place.

We had actually talked about extending the concept north, to include the Cadillac dealership land, the Houston Endowment land north of it, and the Fire Museum land north of that, as well as a Houston Endowment property at the northeast corner of McGowen and Main. At that time, it was a 21st century library, perhaps with no books, that would go where the Cadillac dealership is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree there should be more park space, I would much prefer the development rendered on the Ziegler website for this location... it would be a much more effective and exciting use of the land.

It has always been a mystery to me why the best development project for a huge piece of land with no cross streets would be residences and so forth. I haven't seen the Camden plan, but if this superblock becomes basically impenetrable for pedestrians it could kill the growth of mixed-use/walkability there. Seems to me you'd want to see all this Camden stuff happening around the block, not in it.

If the plan doesn't punch pedestrian and even car streets through at the discontinuous places, that seems like a monumental mistake in terms of urbanism. Great suburban gated community stuff, but nuts in terms of walkability and all the development in the rest of the surrounding blocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, though, there aren't a lot of places well suited for dense urban living in Houston.

That is ridiculous. If anything, Houston has so many different places that are well-suited for urban living that no one neighborhood has been able to achieve enough market share to support a total urban transformation. Think of all the tens of thousands of new single-family homes and townhomes developed inside the loop (Downtown, Uptown, Midtown, Memorial Heights, Montrose, Upper Kirby, West U., Bellaire, Rice Military, Heights, Museum District, Cottage Grove, 1st Ward, 4th Ward, East End, 3rd Ward). Houston is not short of urban development by any measure; it is just occuring so many different places all at once that it's sometimes hard to notice the forest from the trees.

Midtown is one of the few, and it's the farthest along in its redevelopment. The city has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from investing in its core, and residential development helps keep retail alive and crime down.

Frankly, it seems to me as though Midtown has been passed over relative to many other areas. And it has completely lost its momentum over the past year, with numerous project cancellations. I know of six multifamily projects in Midtown that are dead or dying. Meanwhile, townhome construction is no longer feasible. I would definitely argue that Uptown, Montrose, Rice Military, Upper Kirby, the Museum District, or even Washington Avenue is further along at this point as compared to Midtown.

It helps a lot that other parts of the urban core have many more contiguous parcels of land under the same owner. Midtown may be a grid, but insofar as it results in fractured ownership, it is more hurtful of development than helpful.

The city has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from investing in its core, and residential development helps keep retail alive and crime down.

Empty rhetoric. Any investment can go sour. Also, residential development in Midtown is only displacing residents from another neighborhood that they otherwise would've lived in. Surely they would have still had retail expenditures, even if they had moved to Uptown rather than Midtown.

You need to realize that Sim Cityism is a poor substitute for humanism or fiscal realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the Camden plan, but if this superblock becomes basically impenetrable for pedestrians it could kill the growth of mixed-use/walkability there. Seems to me you'd want to see all this Camden stuff happening around the block, not in it.

Well that's why I made it real easy and linked the plan in my post above.

Here is the link again.

If you look at the rendering, it has a pedestrian street cut through the center of the development (that would likely lead back to Travis) and mentions a park at the southern edge. Looks pretty pedestrian friendly to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chevron is already buying the old YMCA downtown. YMCA already has plans for a replacement facitlity near the Pierce Elevated. The city has nothing to do with this.

That's good info, I didn't know about Chevron's plans.

I'm aware that the city isn't involved in any of this, it's purely my concept of what would be ideal in the area.

As far as what I *do* know, the Fire Museum will likely end up having a plaza area in front, facing onto Hadley street.

And the superblock is half owned by the public. I'm pretty sure it's the redevelopment authority. I'm pretty involved with the urban planning committee for the Midtown Management District, they talk about the superblock a lot, but always in the context of working with the redevelopment authority and Camden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is ridiculous. If anything, Houston has so many different places that are well-suited for urban living that no one neighborhood has been able to achieve enough market share to support a total urban transformation. Think of all the tens of thousands of new single-family homes and townhomes developed inside the loop (Downtown, Uptown, Midtown, Memorial Heights, Montrose, Upper Kirby, West U., Bellaire, Rice Military, Heights, Museum District, Cottage Grove, 1st Ward, 4th Ward, East End, 3rd Ward). Houston is not short of urban development by any measure; it is just occuring so many different places all at once that it's sometimes hard to notice the forest from the trees.

Frankly, it seems to me as though Midtown has been passed over relative to many other areas. And it has completely lost its momentum over the past year, with numerous project cancellations. I know of six multifamily projects in Midtown that are dead or dying. Meanwhile, townhome construction is no longer feasible. I would definitely argue that Uptown, Montrose, Rice Military, Upper Kirby, the Museum District, or even Washington Avenue is further along at this point as compared to Midtown.

It helps a lot that other parts of the urban core have many more contiguous parcels of land under the same owner. Midtown may be a grid, but insofar as it results in fractured ownership, it is more hurtful of development than helpful.

Empty rhetoric. Any investment can go sour. Also, residential development in Midtown is only displacing residents from another neighborhood that they otherwise would've lived in. Surely they would have still had retail expenditures, even if they had moved to Uptown rather than Midtown.

You need to realize that Sim Cityism is a poor substitute for humanism or fiscal realism.

Alright, let me clarify what I mean by dense urban living:

Montrose isn't dense urban living in my book, it's moderately dense compared to suburbia, but it's still pretty low density overall. Yes, there are some corners here and there where you start to have a bit of density, but not a lot.

I love Montrose, but it's only scratching the surface of a dense urban neighborhood. And, specifically, I think Montrose adds a lot of value to places like Midtown and Upper Kirby specifically because it is *not* as dense as those areas.

Now, you mention large parcels and fractured ownership etc... It's true that conventional development occurs more easily on these large lots. My point is, that's not the crap that constitutes urban in general. For instance, AMLI Memorial Heights: not urban. Camden Midtown: barely urban. The reason is, any genuine urban development is going to be AT LEAST equally accomodating to pedestrians and automobiles, and good urban development will accomodate cars discretely while being strongly oriented to pedestrians.

Post Midtown is urban. Camden Midtown, barely. Calais at Courtland Square, not urban. Dense, but not urban. Parts of downtown are urban.

The point is, when you have the street network as it is in Midtown, nearly anything that happens will be more urban by nature than anything that goes on out in the burbs, or in the 'large block' areas like Uptown or Upper Kirby.

If walking isn't at least a comfortable, practical choice, and ideally the best choice for short trips, then an area is not urban.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, if an area isn't transit supportive and at least marginally transit-oriented, it still barely qualifies as urban.

For Midtown likely that you can get to work without driving. Maybe you don't, but you could. But in Montrose? Unlikely. Possible, yes, but not likely. Upper Kirby? Maybe. Washington Avenue, unlikely. Uptown, possible. That's another major criteria of whether an area can sustain a dense residential population.

Lastly, the momentum in Midtown has started to run out for several reasons, among which fratured land ownership is only one. The general tightening of the credit market is a much bigger problem. Undesirable land uses (like the two bus stations on Main and Gray), plus massive derelicts (like "central bank") hurt other areas more locally.

But the biggest problem is parking. It's just about impossible to afford the construction cost of all the parking that is typically required in an urban setting. More specifically, it's impossible to do it at the rent levels that Houston currently supports. Parking regulations drive up the cost of housing in urban areas and make them less competitive.

Also, the parking requirements are much higher than what is really needed in a development. Take Post Midtown, where I live, as an example again. That complex was built taking advantage of the 'CBD' designation to allow just one parking space per unit, instead of the normal ratio ranging from 1.3 to 2 spaces per unit (depending on bedroom configuration). The complex has a 6 level garage. I've only ever had to park on level 5 one time. Once. Ever. The bottom level of the garage is used for visitors and retailers, and it stays pretty busy, but there's still a space available more often than not. Clearly, that parking ratio works. Why then, do we require higher ratios by law, and only allow variances after a brutal approval process?

What I'm suggesting is that a combination of public groups work together to invest in centralized parking in Midtown, and then cover it up with a public park.

If they would do this, instead of having 3-5 blocks of significant redevelopment, we'd likely end up with 10-20 blocks undergoing significant transformation.

This centralized parking could serve all the retail and commercial uses in the area, and residential complexes (like Camden Travis) could continue to serve their own internal parking needs.

The idea that people would just live somewhere else is somewhat true. My point is, it would be better for more people to have the opportunity to live in a nice environment close to their place of employment. Midtown's location between Downtown and TMC is unbeatable for access to employment. Could those people live in sugarland instead? Sure. But it would benefit everyone if the growth of the city were steered towards areas that would not just pump 100% of their traffic onto the already overloaded freeway system, but make use of the ample local street network and mass transit that already is on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'm suggesting is that a combination of public groups work together to invest in centralized parking in Midtown, and then cover it up with a public park.

not sure the public should be getting into the business of providing parking for apartments and businesses. if a business wants to open and get as much business as possible, they need to provide parking and/or work with other businesses to provide easy access to parking. i know i wouldn't pay $5 for parking to go to cyclone anaya's, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, let me clarify what I mean by dense urban living:

I think you're generally right about this. Many of these so-called "urban" areas developing are increasing automobile congestion and doing nothing to give people an option for mobility. At the moment, the Main Street area is the only truly transit-friendly one that also has some of the other characteristics of urbanity. Midtown is, indeed, the greatest opportunity the City has for significant urbanization. Unfortunately, the city has declined to recognize or deal with that.

I remember the story about how things got started back in the 80s. It took the City entering into a partnership to get the ball rolling. That will be true at the three station areas as well. It is essentially illegal to do urban development anywhere in the City except the CBD, so developers have either built suburban style there or gone through the variance process with the Planning Commission. That is clearly not sane, and we should all work hard to get City Council to change those rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not sure the public should be getting into the business of providing parking for apartments and businesses. if a business wants to open and get as much business as possible, they need to provide parking and/or work with other businesses to provide easy access to parking. i know i wouldn't pay $5 for parking to go to cyclone anaya's, etc.

The public is in the business of providing infrastructure, and that's what parking is. Centralized parking, combined with good on-street parking design, creates an economic boost for the surrounding area. That creates opportunities for businesses where they didn't exist before, the same way that building a road or a sewer line does.

I don't think the city should be building residential parking, but I do think that they could build centralized parking targeted at visitors to the area, mainly people who will shop or play in the area, and that would significantly improve the ability of small shops to operate.

The point is not to provide parking for Cyclone Anayas though, that's really beyond the practical radius of McGowen. The idea is to provide parking and some aesthetic improvements in an area that's kind of dead now, an area that's critical as a gateway into Midtown via the rail, and use those investments to help complete the transformation of the area.

In the end its a good investment, the ammount of redevelopment activity that would follow would yield a long-term sustainable profit to the city. The challenge is, these returns are over a long enough time-frame that private sector money alone is typically uninterested. Only the big national players with access to better debt are building projects that require massive infrastrucutre investments themselves (like Regent's Square).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not to provide parking for Cyclone Anayas though, that's really beyond the practical radius of McGowen. The idea is to provide parking and some aesthetic improvements in an area that's kind of dead now, an area that's critical as a gateway into Midtown via the rail, and use those investments to help complete the transformation of the area.

In the end its a good investment, the ammount of redevelopment activity that would follow would yield a long-term sustainable profit to the city. The challenge is, these returns are over a long enough time-frame that private sector money alone is typically uninterested. Only the big national players with access to better debt are building projects that require massive infrastrucutre investments themselves (like Regent's Square).

.

there's a reason that area is kind of dead currently. speculators jacked up the prices and killed development. the ones that did build have strip centers that are empty because rents are too high.

the city has spent millions in midtown already to improve infrastructure, i'd rather not have them spend millions more to provide parking, IN HOPES that the rest of midtown will be developed.

Municipal parking can be big business.
concur but not in midtown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, let me clarify what I mean by dense urban living:

Montrose isn't dense urban living in my book, it's moderately dense compared to suburbia, but it's still pretty low density overall. Yes, there are some corners here and there where you start to have a bit of density, but not a lot.

I love Montrose, but it's only scratching the surface of a dense urban neighborhood. And, specifically, I think Montrose adds a lot of value to places like Midtown and Upper Kirby specifically because it is *not* as dense as those areas.

Now, you mention large parcels and fractured ownership etc... It's true that conventional development occurs more easily on these large lots. My point is, that's not the crap that constitutes urban in general. For instance, AMLI Memorial Heights: not urban. Camden Midtown: barely urban. The reason is, any genuine urban development is going to be AT LEAST equally accomodating to pedestrians and automobiles, and good urban development will accomodate cars discretely while being strongly oriented to pedestrians.

Post Midtown is urban. Camden Midtown, barely. Calais at Courtland Square, not urban. Dense, but not urban. Parts of downtown are urban.

The point is, when you have the street network as it is in Midtown, nearly anything that happens will be more urban by nature than anything that goes on out in the burbs, or in the 'large block' areas like Uptown or Upper Kirby.

If walking isn't at least a comfortable, practical choice, and ideally the best choice for short trips, then an area is not urban.

Individual apartment complexes do not urbanity make. Post Midtown, standing alone, next to a suburban-style CVS Pharmacy...that's not urban, it by itself is a joke. Now, go outward from there within the ped-shed and tie in all the apartment complexes and townhomes in nearby 4th Ward and in Midtown, consider the string of little restaurants along W. Gray, and even the ugliness of vacant buildings and a Greyhound bus station on the way to the light rail--THAT--all tied together as a fabric--is an urban landscape.

I don't think that it really has to do, necessarily, with the height of buildings, with whether they conform to some kind of aesthetic ideals (and perhaps even that they refuse to conform and instead are juxtapositions of one another is a more genuine kind of urbanism), or even with night-time population or with crime rate. What you seem to be talking about is a kind of master-planned urbanism; but when you just change the density and aesthetics of suburbia but retain the same kind of population, pretty much get rid of all the poor people, and thereby totally eliminate crime...and call it urban...that's a highly-contrived Disnified travesty. You may as well be talking about The Woodlands Town Center or Celebration, FL.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, if an area isn't transit supportive and at least marginally transit-oriented, it still barely qualifies as urban.

For Midtown likely that you can get to work without driving. Maybe you don't, but you could. But in Montrose? Unlikely. Possible, yes, but not likely. Upper Kirby? Maybe. Washington Avenue, unlikely. Uptown, possible. That's another major criteria of whether an area can sustain a dense residential population.

There are parts of the city, especially Greater 3rd Ward, Greater 5th Ward and Kashmere, and in the vast swath of apartment complexes in southwest Houston, where transit is disproportionately abundant. Some of these areas are actually pretty low-density and just have a population with a high propensity to use transit and other areas would hardly qualify as urban by your standards in spite of being the densest parts of our region.

Washington Avenue, Montrose, Uptown, et al. do have transit, even if the kind of transit doesn't conform to the aesthetic preferences of high-income households. And you ought to consider such places as the apartment complexes that are around Holly Hall, Fannin, and Almeda. In addition to a light rail station (which, incidentally, gets less use than any other station) they have multiple bike lanes and sidewalks, and they not only have METRO bus service but also shuttles directly to the TMC. They have a grocery store within walking distance, and as millions of square feet of new medical office and lab space is completed nearby they'll have access to tens of thousands of jobs very easily within walking distance and right next to some ball fields and a park. It is a wonderfully efficient neighborhood in a number of respects and is also sociologically-balanced, with a very diverse population including high-, middle-, and low-income residents, many of whom are disproportionately well-educated. But...Andres Duany, one of the disciples of urbanism specifically pointed out this neighborhood as being the antithesis of urbanism. The grid isn't tight enough and the scale isn't aesthetically befitting of such density.

I would argue that Midtown is not in and of itself transit-supportive or transit-oriented (in the way that the Holly Hall area is), but is instead only on-the-way between places that are.

But the biggest problem is parking. It's just about impossible to afford the construction cost of all the parking that is typically required in an urban setting. More specifically, it's impossible to do it at the rent levels that Houston currently supports. Parking regulations drive up the cost of housing in urban areas and make them less competitive.

Also, the parking requirements are much higher than what is really needed in a development. Take Post Midtown, where I live, as an example again. That complex was built taking advantage of the 'CBD' designation to allow just one parking space per unit, instead of the normal ratio ranging from 1.3 to 2 spaces per unit (depending on bedroom configuration). The complex has a 6 level garage. I've only ever had to park on level 5 one time. Once. Ever. The bottom level of the garage is used for visitors and retailers, and it stays pretty busy, but there's still a space available more often than not. Clearly, that parking ratio works. Why then, do we require higher ratios by law, and only allow variances after a brutal approval process?

What I'm suggesting is that a combination of public groups work together to invest in centralized parking in Midtown, and then cover it up with a public park.

If they would do this, instead of having 3-5 blocks of significant redevelopment, we'd likely end up with 10-20 blocks undergoing significant transformation.

This centralized parking could serve all the retail and commercial uses in the area, and residential complexes (like Camden Travis) could continue to serve their own internal parking needs.

The idea that people would just live somewhere else is somewhat true. My point is, it would be better for more people to have the opportunity to live in a nice environment close to their place of employment. Midtown's location between Downtown and TMC is unbeatable for access to employment. Could those people live in sugarland instead? Sure. But it would benefit everyone if the growth of the city were steered towards areas that would not just pump 100% of their traffic onto the already overloaded freeway system, but make use of the ample local street network and mass transit that already is on the ground.

FactCheck: Post Midtown Square has 875 parking stalls for residential use and another 100 for commercial use. The residential parking ratio is about 1.7. I've come to realize from professional experience that underparking a property is a really bad idea. That kind of a design constraint disqualifies the developer from accessing capital from most lenders or equity partners.

The unpleasant reality is that by providing public parking to offset code requirements, it only increases the land values nearby to such an extent as that any cost savings to the developer are captured by the land owner. It might spur marginally more development, but once you start assembling a cost-benefit calculus, it'd become immediately apparent that that kind of an investment is mostly just a transfer payment from the City to high-net-worth individuals and companies with relatively little impact to the built environment...but even then, it is questionable whether the City should be providing any kind of a subsidy to specifically encourage development of expensive housing.

For the White administration, at least, the policy has been that City subsidy of retail is acceptable because retail is a quasi-public environment accessible by all. Housing is considered more of a private realm, therefore it gets nothing, regardless of how cool it looks.

METRO has gotten involved in trying to encourage residential development in isolated cases, but their history isn't very good. They dropped the ball on the TMC Transit Center redevelopment and really pissed off HISD, Harris County, and the City by arranging to buy and hold land as a tax-exempt entity while a developer got his act together (which he hasn't), and most developers frankly do not trust them.

The idea that people would just live somewhere else is somewhat true. My point is, it would be better for more people to have the opportunity to live in a nice environment close to their place of employment. Midtown's location between Downtown and TMC is unbeatable for access to employment. Could those people live in sugarland instead? Sure. But it would benefit everyone if the growth of the city were steered towards areas that would not just pump 100% of their traffic onto the already overloaded freeway system, but make use of the ample local street network and mass transit that already is on the ground.

I don't think that people are going to be weighing Midtown against Sugar Land. I'm thinking more that it is Midtown against 4th Ward, Montrose, Museum District, or East End. Let me put it this way: why should the city concentrate more on the area around the Superblock as compared to, say, Wheeler Transit Center, Hardy Yards, south Downtown, or the Museum District? There are many excellent public-private partnership opportunities that are nearby that wouldn't affect freeway use one way or the other. In that context, the Superblock and even Midtown as a whole just isn't really that special or unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I.e. a place for teenagers to use facebook, surf the internet, and play video games.

In all seriousness, HPL could open an Express branch in Midtown (It did so in Discovery Green), but I'm not sure if that is feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 years later...

Crossley quote from the article:

We have one obvious and open example here in Discovery Green. I'd like to see more examples. Like...Elizabeth Baldwin Park(townhomes, apts), or Emancipation Park(nothing. just wrong side of the "tracks")?

What other examples(in Houston) are there besides just the big city parks like DG, Baldwin park etc?

http://www.houstonmi...NDA03.31.11.pdf

"5. Midtown Capital Improvement Program.

a. Bagby Street Reconstruction – Walter P. Moore.

b. Parks and Greenspace – Walter P. Moore.

i. Midtown Park – Design Work Order

ii. SuperBlock Park

(1) Site Analysis/Development Work Order.

(2) Development Agreement with Camden.

c. Gray Street Pedestrian Enhancements – Phase I – Clark Condon Associates.

i. Approve change order for construction materials testing

d. HCC Capital Projects – Pate Engineers.

i. Holman Street – Design Work Order

ii. Alabama Street – Design Work Order

e. FTA Grant – Goodman Corporation"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...