East River: Mixed-Use Development By Midway

[LS27]

The concern is mostly that the relocated exit now has two additional road crossings (Hardy & McKee) and at least 1 at grade railroad crossing (UPRR). I've seen plots that indicate that the BNSF RR (West belt), which is an extremely busy rail line, will have some type of underpass, but other plots do not indicate this, so it is unclear if this underpass will happen or not.

 

If it was merely exiting a mile further up and a smooth ride down a disruption free access road (Rothwell St), then it wouldn't be a big deal, but as it stands it looks like it'll be two road intersections (currently a poorly managed intersection btw), and potentially up to two on-grade rail crossings. The latter, especially, is a deal breaker and really hinders accessibility to the neighborhood, not to mention that it can be an emergency hazard, and wasn't TXDOT trying to get away from rail crossings at service roads anyway?

 

The only way I can see this being sensible is the service rds having the right of way at Hardy / McKee and not having on-grade rail crossings. 

[Houston19514]

17 minutes ago, LS27 said:

The concern is mostly that the relocated exit now has two additional road crossings (Hardy & McKee) and at least 1 at grade railroad crossing (UPRR). I've seen plots that indicate that the BNSF RR (West belt), which is an extremely busy rail line, will have some type of underpass, but other plots do not indicate this, so it is unclear if this underpass will happen or not.

 

If it was merely exiting a mile further up and a smooth ride down a disruption free access road (Rothwell St), then it wouldn't be a big deal, but as it stands it looks like it'll be two road intersections (currently a poorly managed intersection btw), and potentially up to two on-grade rail crossings. The latter, especially, is a deal breaker and really hinders accessibility to the neighborhood, not to mention that it can be an emergency hazard, and wasn't TXDOT trying to get away from rail crossings at service roads anyway?

 

The only way I can see this being sensible is the service rds having the right of way at Hardy / McKee and not having on-grade rail crossings. 

 

Traffic going to Jensen can survive a couple of traffic signals.

 

The plan shows the access road going underneath railroad bridges for both railroad crossings.

[HOUTEX]

31 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Traffic going to Jensen can survive a couple of traffic signals.

 

The plan shows the access road going underneath railroad bridges for both railroad crossings.

 

Traffic today can probably handle it.  But traffic in any scenario where Hardy Yards , East River or Frank Liu's MDI Site have been developed and those thousands of additional drivers are getting off I-10 and you're gonna have backups for days at McKee & Hardy. Plus Nance is being closed.

[Luminare]

57 minutes ago, HOUTEX said:

 

Traffic today can probably handle it.  But traffic in any scenario where Hardy Yards , East River or Frank Liu's MDI Site have been developed and those thousands of additional drivers are getting off I-10 and you're gonna have backups for days at McKee & Hardy. Plus Nance is being closed.

 

Have you done millions of dollars worth of traffic studies and committed hours upon hours of time dedicated to traffic analysis over the next 10-20 years?

Edited March 13, 2019 by Luminare

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, HOUTEX said:

 

Traffic today can probably handle it.  But traffic in any scenario where Hardy Yards , East River or Frank Liu's MDI Site have been developed and those thousands of additional drivers are getting off I-10 and you're gonna have backups for days at McKee & Hardy. Plus Nance is being closed.

 

I cannot imagine why any significant amount of Eastbound I-10 and Southbound I-45 traffic to the MDI site would use the Jensen exit, even with the current arrangement; that traffic will most likely go to Hirsch Rd.

 

Similarly, much of the traffic bound for East River will use the Hirsch exit, especially if there is any amount of congestion using the Jensen exit.

 

Traffic bound for Hardy Yards will almost certainly exit the access road before it reaches McKee, or, presumably there will be a U-turn lane at McKee,and Hardy Yards traffic will take that - either way, Hardy Yards traffic won't be creating a great deal of congestion at Mckee and none at Hardy.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Houston19514

[jmitch94]

There is a whole section of this website dedicated to transportation discussions. Can we please keep this to the Midway KBR site project? 

[I'm Not a Robot]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Similarly, much of the traffic bound for East River will use the Hirsch exit, especially if there is any amount of congestion using the Jensen exit.

  

 

Jensen exit as of today literally spits you out onto where East River is. I don't know if you're specifically talking about with regards to future plans or if you're talking about today if East River were open. You can rationalize it however you want, it's not a benefit to the area even if it's not a huge detriment. 

 

You are going to bat for TXDot alot in a thread that's supposed to be about the construction of a game changer for the City.  

 

Luckily txdot hasn't seemed to scare away developers from the area and I can't wait to see what this area looks like despite having to work around this. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by I'm Not a Robot

[samagon]

22 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Get over it.  There will be easy access to Jensen, the East Side, EADO, East River and Ninfa's.

 

how is cutting across 4 lanes of traffic (assuming is going from 45SB to 10EB to Jensen) 'easy access'?

 

there's going to be accidents caused by people doing exactly this.

[HOUTEX]

4 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Have you done millions of dollars worth of traffic studies and committed hours upon hours of time dedicated to traffic analysis over the next 10-20 years?

 

I sincerely doubt traffic simulations have figured any of that will ever be anything other than industrial. The best data they have would only show current daily car counts or old census data and some growth rate. Midway's plans were only just released and it looks like a lot of new office space and shops along or near by Jensen. For that reason I'd be there will be zero people that use Hirsch to get there if not forced to - plus they frequently park trains on Hirsch for long periods of time. It's not a good route south of I-10. 

Edited March 13, 2019 by HOUTEX

[AnTonY]

On 3/12/2019 at 11:42 AM, Angostura said:

 

Don't need 'em.

 

I'd rather we get buildings that look good from the sidewalk, rather than from a helicopter, freeway or rendering. You can actually get tons of density at mid-rise heights as long as you don't surround the buildings with surface parking or green space that no one ever sets foot in. They've also managed to keep the internal rights-of-way reasonably narrow.

 

Cities like Paris and Barcelona achieve really high densities with essentially nothing over 8 stories.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 1:30 PM, Sky-guy said:

See Washington, DC

 

Houston has lax zoning, anyway, so the sky rises would go up as long as the market demands it.

Edited March 15, 2019 by AnTonY

[Naviguessor]

Houston doesn’t have lax zoning. 

Houston doesn’t have zoning. 

[Angostura]

8 hours ago, Naviguessor said:

Houston doesn’t have lax zoning. 

Houston doesn’t have zoning. 

 

I would trade a 6- or 8-story height cap outside the CBD for zero parking minimums citywide.

[Mr.Clean19]

Another way to look at this regarding Skyscrapers is that this project is moving from west to east. They done want to block potential view by building tall buildings first. I have a feeling that Midway has a good strategy in place to maximize the downtown view and waterfront.

[AnTonY]

11 hours ago, Naviguessor said:

Houston doesn’t have lax zoning. 

Houston doesn’t have zoning. 

"Lax" because it still has some regulations on development that would typically be packaged in a zoning ordinance. And some of these regulations actually limit the urban growth of the city.

Edited March 15, 2019 by AnTonY

[thedistrict84]

3 hours ago, Angostura said:

I would trade a 6- or 8-story height cap outside the CBD for zero parking minimums citywide.

 

You need to stop saying completely reasonable things that I actually agree with, it’s making me feel conflicted because I’m used to disagreeing with you. 

[AnTonY]

I'd certainly make the trade if that were the only choice. Otherwise, I'd rather not have an arbitrary height-cap as well. Let the city grow and breathe east without any cookie-cutter regulations to increase COL.

Edited March 15, 2019 by AnTonY

[H-Town Man]

4 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

I would trade a 6- or 8-story height cap outside the CBD for zero parking minimums citywide.

 

There's a story about Jesse Jones visiting Paris and being impressed, and wanting Houston to be built out with 10 story or shorter buildings. Then the Esperson buildings went up and he essentially decided, "If you can't beat them, beat them," so then he built the taller Gulf Building.

 

Point being that building tall is more or less in Houston's DNA, as are multiply skylines. I think that this is our one big advantage over Washington D.C., a city with a higher value economy than ours - we look like a real, organic city, while they look contrived and sterile. If you look at the illustrations of European cities circa 1600 in Braun & Hogenberg's Civitates Orbis Terrarum, Houston actually resembles these cities much more closely than does D.C. or many European cities today. All have a kind of three-dimensionality, a sense of taking off and building as upward and outward as possible, albeit limited by the constraint of walls.

 

I am with you 100% on abolishing parking minimums, and I very much want to see pedestrian life take off in Houston, and life without a car to be possible. But even if this happens, it's going to look very different in Houston from our more by-the-book urban cities.

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by H-Town Man

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric

[AnTonY]

8 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

I am with you 100% on abolishing parking minimums, and I very much want to see pedestrian life take off in Houston, and life without a car to be possible. But even if this happens, it's going to look very different in Houston from our more by-the-book urban cities.

 

If you are referring to car-centricness, then that will depend very much on how much the people here truly love their cars. Do people here truly like their vehicles and having to use them to go anywhere? Or do they only want them in efforts to compensate for the environment (i.e. need for amenities, peer pressure, etc)?

[Twinsanity02]

23 minutes ago, AnTonY said:

If you are referring to car-centricness, then that will depend very much on how much the people here truly love their cars. Do people here truly like their vehicles and having to use them to go anywhere? Or do they only want them in efforts to compensate for the environment (i.e. need for amenities, peer pressure, etc)?

I think many people love their cars.It gives them a sense of freedom and control. I for one took the metro as often as I could when working at TMC. Nevertheless The Houston MSA( as is DFW) is very large in area, nearly the size of Massachusetts, growing, very rapidly, and inexpensive for middle class families, unlike Boston or SF.  We are going to be a automobile oriented city for a very long time.

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, Timoric said:

The GDPs are very similar DC and Houston. They can change based on Houston's oil price as well. Sometimes Houston places 4th other times it drops down several slots.

 

GDP per capita is more meaningful, and even that is skewed by a large population of people who do not participate in the DC economy. You have to look at land values, cost of living, median house price, office rent, etc.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by H-Town Man

[H-Town Man]

4 hours ago, AnTonY said:

If you are referring to car-centricness, then that will depend very much on how much the people here truly love their cars. Do people here truly like their vehicles and having to use them to go anywhere? Or do they only want them in efforts to compensate for the environment (i.e. need for amenities, peer pressure, etc)?

 

I am not talking about the whole city shifting from a car-based to a walking lifestyle. I am talking about a walking lifestyle taking root somewhere in our city. I'm thinking that between downtown, midtown, EaDo, maybe the Museum District and eventually Washington Avenue, we can have areas where it's possible to do most things without a car. 

 

Chicago, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, San Francisco, perhaps New Orleans are good examples of hybrid cities where you have a walkable city within a predominantly car-based city. New York being America's one predominantly walking-based city.

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by H-Town Man

[Twinsanity02]

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I am not talking about the whole city shifting from a car-based to a walking lifestyle. I am talking about a walking lifestyle taking root somewhere in our city. I'm thinking that between downtown, midtown, EaDo, maybe the Museum District and eventually Washington Avenue, we can have areas where it's possible to do most things without a car. 

 

Chicago, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, perhaps New Orleans are good examples of hybrid cities where you have a walkable city within a predominantly car-based city. New York being America's one predominantly walking-based city.

 

I think parts of midtown, museum district, and  rice village area are there, uptown has a ways to go. When I stroll through uptown there are very few pedestrians which is surprising considering all the high rises in the area. If the museum district would get ground level retail and restaurants like the northwest area of midtown it would be almost European in ambiance.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric

[Luminare]

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I am not talking about the whole city shifting from a car-based to a walking lifestyle. I am talking about a walking lifestyle taking root somewhere in our city. I'm thinking that between downtown, midtown, EaDo, maybe the Museum District and eventually Washington Avenue, we can have areas where it's possible to do most things without a car. 

 

Chicago, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, perhaps New Orleans are good examples of hybrid cities where you have a walkable city within a predominantly car-based city. New York being America's one predominantly walking-based city.

 

 

Partly true. The best we can do, as some other try to do, is make it that kind of lifestyle more accessible to many different kinds of people. Thats the best we can try to produce. Everyone is different and everyone has different needs. If you want to have a walkable lifestyle then you have to first and foremost make that a personal priority. I loved my walkable lifestyle while I was in Germany, and when I moved back here I was determined to make that a priority and act on it. For the past year I have methodically constructed a life where I get to live that walkable lifestyle. I live in Montrose, and work at a firm that is 4 blocks from where I live and I live 4 blocks where a bunch of good restaurants and bars are. I have an HEB close by. I literally walk everywhere I go. I maybe drive my car once a month (in mileage I probably drive 100-200 miles per month where before in the burbs I would drive way more). There are plenty of instances where one can have that life in this city, but you have to make it your own and you have to make it a priority. In cities like Berlin, or other places I was at in Germany, yeah it was easier, and more places to do so, but you still had to construct a life where you could live that lifestyle. Its a two-way street and we sometimes miss that. We also miss the fact that....some people will always love the driving life style and thats fine with me. My gripe has always been that we only design and cater to one lifestyle. Anyway, point being you can do it in this city, but you have to want it. If you want it then make it happen. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Luminare

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

 

Partly true. The best we can do, as some other try to do, is make it that kind of lifestyle more accessible to many different kinds of people. Thats the best we can try to produce. Everyone is different and everyone has different needs. If you want to have a walkable lifestyle then you have to first and foremost make that a personal priority. I loved my walkable lifestyle while I was in Germany, and when I moved back here I was determined to make that a priority and act on it. For the past year I have methodically constructed a life where I get to live that walkable lifestyle. I live in Montrose, and work at a firm that is 4 blocks from where I live and I live 4 blocks where a bunch of good restaurants and bars are. I have an HEB close by. I literally walk everywhere I go. I maybe drive my car once a month (in mileage I probably drive 100-200 miles per month where before in the burbs I would drive way more). There are plenty of instances where one can have that life in this city, but you have to make it your own and you have to make it a priority. In cities like Berlin, or other places I was at in Germany, yeah it was easier, and more places to do so, but you still had to construct a life where you could live that lifestyle. Its a two-way street and we sometimes miss that. We also miss the fact that....some people will always love the driving life style and thats fine with me. My gripe has always been that we only design and cater to one lifestyle. Anyway, point being you can do it in this city, but you have to want it. If you want it then make it happen. 

 

Well yeah, it's possible in lots of places in Houston. People in Gulfton were walking places back in the 80's, as are some folks in our eastside neighborhoods. When I say "walkable," I mean, "pleasant to walk around." Where life is easy enough on foot that it makes sense to people who aren't determined urban trendsetters. This requires good sidewalks, residences and buildings that are congenial to pedestrian life, abundant shade whether from trees or awnings, most things you need within a 10 block radius (grocer, pharmacy, basic dry goods, some restaurants, laundromat, florist, transit stop, maybe hardware), mixture of uses and fine-grained development to keep it interesting, things to slow down and limit the intrusion of cars (2-3 lane 30 mph max streets, parallel parking as buffer, stops at every intersection), and last but not least, other people walking.

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by H-Town Man

[AnTonY]

@Twinsanity02

It's actually sorting itself out. The types of people that would choose areas in the MSA like Sugar Land and The Woodlands likely wouldn't pick inner city Houston, or vice-versa. And with those large suburbs getting more and more self-contained (i.e. with their own employment centers, town-squares, etc), their auto-centricness will have less and less influence on Houston's development.

 

@H-Town Man

My quote was actually directed at the part where you said that the pedestrian lifestyle in Houston would look "very different" from the "by-the-book" urban cities.

 

@Timoric

When I think of walkable subtropical cities, I think of all those dense mega-cities springing up in Asia.

 

 

[Graystone]

 

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I am not talking about the whole city shifting from a car-based to a walking lifestyle. I am talking about a walking lifestyle taking root somewhere in our city. I'm thinking that between downtown, midtown, EaDo, maybe the Museum District and eventually Washington Avenue, we can have areas where it's possible to do most things without a car. 

 

Chicago, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, San Francisco, perhaps New Orleans are good examples of hybrid cities where you have a walkable city within a predominantly car-based city. New York being America's one predominantly walking-based city.

 

Just wanted to add an anecdote on the ability of Houston downtown or east side residence to be car-less. One of the guys I work with (work downtown) lives in The Rice and he doesn't own a car. He gets his groceries delivered, walks most places and ubers anywhere outside downtown he needs to go. So its possible in H-Town today.

[Angostura]

On 3/15/2019 at 1:01 PM, AnTonY said:

If you are referring to car-centricness, then that will depend very much on how much the people here truly love their cars. Do people here truly like their vehicles and having to use them to go anywhere? Or do they only want them in efforts to compensate for the environment (i.e. need for amenities, peer pressure, etc)?

 

There ARE people who love cars in and of themselves. But my personal experience, and that of most of the people I've talked to that live in a place where not having a car is a feasible lifestyle, is that you don't really miss it. 

 

First off, any city in which living without a car is feasible is probably dense enough that getting around in a car is kind of a pain, at least during certain times a day, and being able to park near where you're going is neither easy nor cheap (let alone free). Second, it's nice to have the extra money in your bank account rather than sunk into a depreciating asset. You never have to worry about whether to have that extra glass of wine at dinner. You'll never get a speeding ticket, and when you ARE in a car (uber/taxi/etc.) you can use your phone to your heart's content. And while having a car can sometimes save you some time getting places, you never have to spend time pumping gas, washing/cleaning the car, changing oil, getting an annual inspection, etc.

 

Spending more time on the other side of the windshield also gives you an acute sense of just how much urban space we've given over to automobiles, even in relatively walkable cities. I would expect cities to gradually give over street space to non-automobile uses (bikes, scooters, walking) as we'll need to be able to move more people in less space than can be accomplished with cars.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric