Jump to content
Dakota79

Ion and Innovation District in Midtown (Former Sears)

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Luminare said:

Why is Third Ward preoccupied with this when it isn't even in Third Ward itself?

 

Technically speaking, anything east of Main is historically Third Ward. But in practice, the descriptors of Midtown or Museum District have long since subsumed that area. Now that we think of Third Ward as being anything between 288 and 45, it does seem like quite a stretch.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the issues brought up in the article, but this project is a major boost for the area. In my mind the positives far outweigh the negatives.

 

It would just be a shame if the project was delayed or the overall vision was stunted because of this.

Edited by CaptainJilliams
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree -- there are ways to have progress that are inclusive and sensitive of the needs of the neighborhood. I would hope the community organizers see the value of development and that the developers see the value of community.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the article reads, it doesn't appear the CBA would hold up the project too much or that they are asking for a lot. The ION spokesperson understands the need for diversity and I think they are open to working with engaging the community. The CBA allows that dialogue to be more open and direct to the community which is always positive for those in the area. I think you will see similar discussions in the East End project and as development moves into near northside.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

10 hours ago, TheSirDingle said:

hmm wonder how this is going to affect the variance request. Does the vocal public support this project more than it doesn't? Hoping this doesn't destroy/delay the plan, and we can get this project underway sooner than later.

 

 

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Everyone should carefully read that article, especially the part where it says that this will be "the first CBA in Houston." What you will see in that article is a prime example of how development takes place in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc.

 

 

Houston, and the Planning Commission, have been generally pretty good at making decisions on variance requests based on the merits of the request itself, in accordance w/ city ordinances. For example, the VR for the Ion garage is perfectly aligned with the planning commission's goals for walkable places and transit corridors, and the variance is to be able to go beyond what the current ordinance requires (i.e. allowing the Fannin frontage to opt in to transit corridor standards).

 

If the variance process becomes, as is common in a lot of cities, a method for interest groups to shake down developers, it will be a step backwards.

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Value of community? What community? This is a bunch of parking lots and an old Sears building that apparently wasn't supported by the "community." The only community in this area is homeless people living under 59 and yuppies living in the apartments to the north. Who decides what the community is? And even if there was a community, why should they get to dictate development on land that someone owns? Does the Humble community tell the airport how it should design the new International terminal? Does the Clear Lake community tell NASA what it should do on its campus?

 

 

No. You don't get to demand groceries from a developer. There are plenty of other grocery stores in the area.

 

 

All of this is correct, which illustrates what this is really about, power politics.

 

Does this development check the boxes:

 

Economically = Yes

Socially = Yes

Technologically = Yes

Politically = No

 

This project, in the minds of these activists, doesn't check the box politically, which is the only box that matters for those who play the game of power politics.

 

"Community" is just a wedge for those who wish to enter into the game and have influence. No community? Doesn't matter just say that there is a community here because people are sympathetic to that word, as ambiguous as it is. Not 3rd Ward? Doesn't matter just mention that 3rd Ward is close by which is dominated disproportionately with those the nation deems as "minorities" even though they make up the "majority" of that actual community.

 

32 minutes ago, Andrew Ewert said:

I agree -- there are ways to have progress that are inclusive and sensitive of the needs of the neighborhood. I would hope the community organizers see the value of development and that the developers see the value of community.

 

And there is the word of the day, "inclusive". Should the development pay mind to is surroundings, yes. Should it improvement the environment around, yes. All that is shown to be the purpose of this development. With that being said, I find it pointless to stall a development for the sake of shoehorning elements of, what some are calling, the DIE religion (diversity, inclusivity, and equity) or what I have come to call "The New Catholic". Its not necessary. Especially when an organization such as Rice is already hyper-sensitive to this elements already, but it seems that is exactly why these people are putting up such a stink.

 

Their insertion into something that doesn't deal with them at all is ridiculous.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Does the Clear Lake community tell NASA what it should do on its campus?

 

As someone who grew up in Clear Lake, you'd better believe that if NASA started buying up every lot around my house to redevelop as they saw fit, that I and my neighbors would want some input in what that redevelopment looked like. Look, absolutely no one here is saying this project should be trash canned or even delayed in any way -- I'm personally really excited to see this area be revitalized.

 

But come on, it is not at all unreasonable to ask for the people in an area affected by development to be included - yes, "included" - in the planning. I'm not speaking for the current proposed Third Ward CBA. I'm speaking for myself with the knowledge that business interests and community interests do not always perfectly align, and to treat them as anything but co-equal is a mistake.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Andrew Ewert said:

 

As someone who grew up in Clear Lake, you'd better believe that if NASA started buying up every lot around my house to redevelop as they saw fit, that I and my neighbors would want some input in what that redevelopment looked like. Look, absolutely no one here is saying this project should be trash canned or even delayed in any way -- I'm personally really excited to see this area be revitalized.

 

But come on, it is not at all unreasonable to ask for the people in an area affected by development to be included - yes, "included" - in the planning. I'm not speaking for the current proposed Third Ward CBA. I'm speaking for myself with the knowledge that business interests and community interests do not always perfectly align, and to treat them as anything but co-equal is a mistake.

 

And I wish that you would be someone represented in that conversation because you actually seem to be someone that would approach this in "good faith", but the actors in these types of instances normally aren't exercising "good faith" and instead normally operate in "bad faith". I'm open, and even as a liberal, sympathetic to arguments to be made by Third Ward and the CBA that comes with it, but its always the same people that wrongly insert themselves into this process and not everyday people such as yourself.

 

I do agree with you end premise that there are many instances where the interests of the community don't necessary align with the developer and that to see it as a co-equal match immediately would be a mistake. However, I would counter-argue that to also believe that there can be a "perfect-align" of any kind involving the community and developer would also be a mistake. Wouldn't you agree?

Edited by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, I'm not trying to respond directly to the discussion of any particular group that's raising concerns about this project. I was responding more to the general tone here that seems to be "economic progress is the only and ultimate purely good goal." 

 

You're right, there's never going to be a perfect solution when those sorts of opposing forces pop up. I'm not saying you get to that perfect alignment -- only that the eventual necessary compromises get made with the input from all stakeholders, including the people who live in the area.

 

(Edit:) And, I would absolutely agree that anyone involving themselves in the process in bad faith is not helping anyone. I just don't think that such concerns are always inherently raised in bad faith.

Edited by Andrew Ewert
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Ewert said:

 

As someone who grew up in Clear Lake, you'd better believe that if NASA started buying up every lot around my house to redevelop as they saw fit, that I and my neighbors would want some input in what that redevelopment looked like. Look, absolutely no one here is saying this project should be trash canned or even delayed in any way -- I'm personally really excited to see this area be revitalized.

 

But come on, it is not at all unreasonable to ask for the people in an area affected by development to be included - yes, "included" - in the planning. I'm not speaking for the current proposed Third Ward CBA. I'm speaking for myself with the knowledge that business interests and community interests do not always perfectly align, and to treat them as anything but co-equal is a mistake.

 

The question was whether the people of Clear Lake could tell NASA what to do on land that it already owned. If they are buying up all the land around your house, I would have to wonder why all the land around your house is selling. If your house is in the middle of a bunch of parking lots and a derelict department store, you probably aren't going to be able to influence how it is developed.

 

No, business interest and community interests are not "co-equal" on land that the business owns. There is a pretty strong tradition of property rights in this country, especially in Houston. Most of our great buildings were not built by developers who asked local residents what they thought beforehand. The guy who built Greenway Plaza spent years buying every house in the neighborhood that was there and then tearing them all down. No tears were shed. If you didn't want to sell, you didn't have to.

 

This can be tempered in some cases by the desire to avoid bad press. If Rice were to build something really ugly in the middle of Third Ward on an otherwise nice street, they would get some bad press, and people on here would probably be sympathetic. But putting something where there was nothing - especially something that is going to bring jobs to the area - should not be met by a parade of demands such as, "There better be some cheap groceries! You better hire us, instead of just hiring the best applicants like any normal employer! The people who do the construction better have a certain skin color!" And if there are such demands, those demands should be resolutely ignored, unless you want to set a precedent that will turn Houston into the next Chicago.

 

Edited by H-Town Man
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Everyone should carefully read that article, especially the part where it says that this will be "the first CBA in Houston." What you will see in that article is a prime example of how development takes place in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc. Cities where activism has replaced entrepreneurialism, and grievance has eclipsed growth. Cities that other cities look upon with fear and describe with terms usually associated with the toilet. Cities that have been sitting ducks for Houston over the past 50 years as we've surpassed one after the other.

 

If this kind of thing takes hold here, bid a fond farewell to the growing, dynamic boomtown that we've been. The most worrisome part of all of it is the role that academics are playing. No one understands economic reality less than an academic, with the possible exception of business and economics professors (emphasis on possible). These are people who generally have stayed in school their entire lives, whose advancement has depended on their ability to flourish inside of a kind of mandarin system of groupthink, where any time spent in the "real world" is looked upon with skepticism and distrust, where any pushing against settled academic norms and conventions is swiftly and viciously (and often silently) punished, usually with loss of opportunity to advance further. Academic involvement in real estate development is like putting sugar in a gas engine or salt in a garden. They are the antibodies of progress, total agents of destruction. They would probably laugh giddily, print it out, and post it in their department hallway if they read this post. And it would be the only tangible thing they accomplished in the entire week.

 

Next post I'll tell you what I really think.

 

Pardon me, but holy crap what a crock of old world thinking. 

Houston is a forward progressive town whether the "old guard" likes it or not.  The founders of this great City as well as civic leaders and mayor after mayor have demonstrated this time and time again to our great success as one of the major metropolises in America.  Our diversity, education and well paid work force (because most Houston employers know the value of their own human resources - people) will always make sure we grow, especially with our own local brand of "activism" pointed in a forward direction of meaningful evolution of ideas and thoughts.  and guess what ?  it CAN be done and will be done here because of our can-do approach to any and all local, regional and national problems, knowing full well that a stagnant city without growth and development isn't a model that would ever work in Houston.  It is a combination of both activism, progress AND development in a carefully thought out environment that fosters both, but honors the historic past.  And, when I say "honors the past" I mean honors the past that was good, not honoring bad experiments and ideals that didn't work or ended up doing more harm than good.

So, I would suggest having more of an open mind about the Ion development and seeing where it goes before trying to drag it into the national conversation over progress versus development, which IMHO is a complete false choice, much like environmental changes and planning for ongoing climate change, versus jobs - complete nonsense and old 20th century thinking.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thatguysly said:

The way the article reads, it doesn't appear the CBA would hold up the project too much or that they are asking for a lot. The ION spokesperson understands the need for diversity and I think they are open to working with engaging the community. The CBA allows that dialogue to be more open and direct to the community which is always positive for those in the area. I think you will see similar discussions in the East End project and as development moves into near northside.

 

Should be interesting as to what they actually demand but from the initial meeting they have large incoherent list they need whittle down.  Also do they plan to go after TMC3 and every other large project in Houston or was Rice an easy target because of location and academia?

 

1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

And if there are such demands, those demands should be resolutely ignored, unless you want to set a precedent that will turn Houston into the next Chicago.

 

I was thinking "Don't San Francisco my Houston"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ArtNsf said:

Pardon me, but holy crap what a crock of old world thinking. 

Houston is a forward progressive town whether the "old guard" likes it or not.  The founders of this great City as well as civic leaders and mayor after mayor have demonstrated this time and time again to our great success as one of the major metropolises in America.  Our diversity, education and well paid work force (because most Houston employers know the value of their own human resources - people) will always make sure we grow, especially with our own local brand of "activism" pointed in a forward direction of meaningful evolution of ideas and thoughts.  and guess what ?  it CAN be done and will be done here because of our can-do approach to any and all local, regional and national problems, knowing full well that a stagnant city without growth and development isn't a model that would ever work in Houston.  It is a combination of both activism, progress AND development in a carefully thought out environment that fosters both, but honors the historic past.  And, when I say "honors the past" I mean honors the past that was good, not honoring bad experiments and ideals that didn't work or ended up doing more harm than good.

So, I would suggest having more of an open mind about the Ion development and seeing where it goes before trying to drag it into the national conversation over progress versus development, which IMHO is a complete false choice, much like environmental changes and planning for ongoing climate change, versus jobs - complete nonsense and old 20th century thinking.

 

So entrepreneurialism-by-committee hasn't worked anywhere else, but it will work in Houston because we have some special, "local" brand of activism that's different from the usual kind?

 

By the way, this sort of thing is pretty new to Houston. Our past development has not been a combination of "activism, progress AND development in a carefully thought out environment." About 99.9% of it was pure self-interest on the developer's part, which has been good for everyone, since it's in a developer's interest to build something that people want.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that's missing is a Train stop right smack in the middle of the Lobby.   Looking at the photos of current progress I think all the initial planning was tossed out a few years ago.  I wish I could be around 50 years from now to read about the 3rd or 4th revival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The grocery store argument really has little merit imo: 

https://www.papercitymag.com/restaurants/h-e-b-macgregor-market-grocery-store-houston-third-ward/

Fiesta ain’t that much cheaper. Plus, the market is changing.
 

There is plenty of legal precedent regarding nuisance land use that affects surrounding communities: stinky slaughterhouses, toxic oil refineries, the list goes on. So community is a big deal when certain land uses are changing. But yeah, this development isn’t a nuisance. It sounds like the negative effects are more of a city planning issue:
 

Will the drug dealers move? What will be done about that? Does the 4 need to be rerouted to have more direct HEB access to the Third Ward community? Will there be jobs? Could HISD and HCC pair up with a group and work on something? 
 

It’s not unreasonable to question the development with all the changes going on, but it’s not necessarily the developers’ problem. It is often that our city and region lack comprehensive planning tools to tackle issues that span various groups and areas. Case in point:  flood regulations that differ from county to county despite a shared common watershed. Our fragmented governments and special districts tend to exacerbate the issue. But then again, some people just get off on confrontation—call it what you will. Ahem, Ashby high rise *cough* Freedman’s Town bricks* ahem. Limestone vs concrete in Houston architecture. Is it beer-thirty yet? ;) 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Materene said:

The only thing that's missing is a Train stop right smack in the middle of the Lobby.   Looking at the photos of current progress I think all the initial planning was tossed out a few years ago.  I wish I could be around 50 years from now to read about the 3rd or 4th revival.


what do you mean by that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

So entrepreneurialism-by-committee hasn't worked anywhere else, but it will work in Houston because we have some special, "local" brand of activism that's different from the usual kind?

 

By the way, this sort of thing is pretty new to Houston. Our past development has not been a combination of "activism, progress AND development in a carefully thought out environment." About 99.9% of it was pure self-interest on the developer's part, which has been good for everyone, since it's in a developer's interest to build something that people want.

 

 

Yep, just like I said.  Houston is a different animal totally and if a well thought out cooperating committee is going to work anywhere, it is here because of our can-do attitude.  Our residents in the area are way more prouder of Houston than in the old days and thankfully, there's a whole new crop of younger people that have moved in that are willing to work with existing and historic ideas, while introducing new ones.  Sort of thinking outside of the box and yes, this includes NEW and existing local developers from what I can tell.  But, see for yourself I suppose.  I've only lived in the area for approximately 50 years, so maybe just not enough observation and experience on my part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Why is Third Ward preoccupied with this when it isn't even in Third Ward itself?

 

While most people now consider the 'Third Ward' to be east of 288 and south of 45, in the ward system it was defined as the area in Houston lying east of Main Street and south of Congress.  Midtown is a newer description and in this day and age a better descriptor as it is essentially an extension of downtown (which also is also partially in the old 'Third Ward').

There is no SANE reason to keep this definition other than trying to exert political/public opinion leverage over landowners since the ward system was revoked decades ago.

 

Now days the major freeways mentioned above define the "Third Ward' neighborhood, and it might just as well be renamed TSU "Heights" or "East River Oaks". What they should be more concerned with it developing the area to it's maximum potential to provide decent paying jobs while encouraging the residents of the 'Third Ward' to educate themselves to take advantage of them.

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Toopicky said:

 

So it seems that FIESTA doesn't want to pay  more for their lease (soon to expire), and IT IS THEIR decision not to renew (at market rates) and not Rice 'kicking them out'.   That is good enough for me ..... besides with the new Whole Foods in Midtown and the new HEB in the 'Third Ward' the area will be amply supplied for grocery options. Could there be more? Sure ..... if it makes ECONOMIC sense.  I predict a new grocery will be developed just north of I-45 soon enough as density (demand) increases

 

It is good the HEB is going in. Poorer areas have always been left behind for groceries and it is bad for the community health. I get that its not this projects job to solve that problem so I do like the insight on the Fiesta. The HEB will help with the grocery desert for the Third Ward.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BeerNut said:

From Midtown meeting:

  • Outdoor area will have programming to bring in local community
  • Fiesta is already paying below market rate for current lease and Fiesta still intend to close
  • Rice representative said they're not going into space to solve homelessness but will work with partners
  • Main building complete Jan 2021 along with Ion Plaza, entire project 2030 based on current timeline
  • Jack in box currently has favorable lease
  • Representative said in reference to affordable housing in surrounding area they can't control properties they don't hold

 

Miraculously the Rice Management Company isn't run by academics, but is actually run by actual business people. That bodes well for the project, and future endeavors. I'm glad they placed people on this job who are actually serious about the work and aren't chasing fantasies, or those who will be susceptible to the whims of the activists mentioned prior. Now we wait to see what the city will do. Then again, due to the cities past track record, I think the city isn't compromised and will do what is necessary. I was very worried that the Rice Management Company was merely an entity in name only, and not a serious development entity, but glad I was wrong.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Moore713 said:

As someone born and raised in Third Ward , I naturally  champion preserving the area History and Culture. That being said the area that the ION is proposing has  largely been abandoned  for almost 20 years now. I dont see how this project effects Third ward as a whole if anything  it should be seen as boom for the Black own business  that reside on Almeda as it would see a rather dead area( Sears area) become more vibrant.  That would lead to spill over  for the cafes and other black towns business  on Almeda as people  till to patron business that are within 2 miles of a place of employment  according to some studies.

 

This and along with the burying of 59. We could be talking about a revolution for Almeda. That street has always had a lot of potential.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

This and along with the burying of 59. We could be talking about a revolution for Almeda. That street has always had a lot of potential.

 

I agree wholeheartedly, but think Almeda would benefit more by a street reconfiguration so that LaBranch St., an outbound one-way, feeds directly into Almeda (northbound already leads into the inbound one-way Crawford St.) so that it forms a better connection to downtown. I never understood why this wasn't done YEARS ago.

Edited by Toopicky
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Toopicky said:

 

I agree wholeheartedly, but think Almeda would benefit more by a street reconfiguration so that LaBranch St., an outbound one-way, feeds directly into Almeda (northbound already leads into the inbound one-way Crawford St.) so that it forms a better connection to downtown. I never understood why this wasn't done YEARS ago.

 

Maybe something like this?

 

OFphDGw.jpg

 

gray is the new road

light yellow would be the abandonment of these streets and turning them into pedestrian roads. most of la branch at this portion is already a pedestrian walk, so wouldn't be out of the question to do the same with the rest. This new connection from la branch to almeda would also help give the campus a defined edge.

 

That parking lot is probably the best bet for reconfiguration as you proposed. Would actually be pretty easy to do. Maybe someone should pitch this idea to the city. It definitely would make traffic flow better here.

Edited by Luminare
wouldn't not would
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had Digital Fight Club tonite at White Oak Music Hall. Just think when this area is built out how many events like that will be taking place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 12:11 PM, Luminare said:

 

Maybe something like this?

 

gray is the new road

light yellow would be the abandonment of these streets and turning them into pedestrian roads. most of la branch at this portion is already a pedestrian walk, so wouldn't be out of the question to do the same with the rest. This new connection from la branch to almeda would also help give the campus a defined edge.

 

That parking lot is probably the best bet for reconfiguration as you proposed. Would actually be pretty easy to do. Maybe someone should pitch this idea to the city. It definitely would make traffic flow better here.

 

I can't imagine HCC being on board with this, and certainly not the townhome owners in that area, which have been easily able to flex their muscles having themselves excised from market based parking and at least temporarily preventing the Austin St bikeway from being put in. 

 

I also don't think that Almeda needs slightly faster connectivity to downtown to continue to grow. Not all roads need to lead to downtown. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/15/2019 at 12:11 PM, Luminare said:

 

Maybe something like this?

 

OFphDGw.jpg

 

gray is the new road

light yellow would be the abandonment of these streets and turning them into pedestrian roads. most of la branch at this portion is already a pedestrian walk, so wouldn't be out of the question to do the same with the rest. This new connection from la branch to almeda would also help give the campus a defined edge.

 

That parking lot is probably the best bet for reconfiguration as you proposed. Would actually be pretty easy to do. Maybe someone should pitch this idea to the city. It definitely would make traffic flow better here.

 

Looks like a solution in search of a problem.

 

2 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

I can't imagine HCC being on board with this, and certainly not the townhome owners in that area, which have been easily able to flex their muscles having themselves excised from market based parking and at least temporarily preventing the Austin St bikeway from being put in. 

 

I also don't think that Almeda needs slightly faster connectivity to downtown to continue to grow. Not all roads need to lead to downtown. 

 

Quite right, but even more important, not all roads leading to downtown (and through Midtown) need to be high-speed thoroughfares. Outbound traffic can (and does) turn left on Holman, then right on Crawford.  Done.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2019 at 7:31 PM, hindesky said:

Not sure how long this sign as been up but the hearing is scheduled for Dec 5.

qUdNpKq.jpg

 

 

This meeting is going to be a cluster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

I can't imagine HCC being on board with this, and certainly not the townhome owners in that area, which have been easily able to flex their muscles having themselves excised from market based parking and at least temporarily preventing the Austin St bikeway from being put in. 

 

I also don't think that Almeda needs slightly faster connectivity to downtown to continue to grow. Not all roads need to lead to downtown. 

 

Yeah I really could care less. That wasn't the objective of this exercise. This was a very isolated discussion between I and @Toopicky to explore a potential planning scenario. I also could care less about more connections to downtown. The immediate goal would be better connections from Almeda to Elgin as both are major thoroughfares which have an interruption point at this intersection from seamlessly connecting with one another. If nimbyism is a parameter which you want to throw in then go ahead, but that would be a severe limitation on an exercise which is suppose to be experimental and exploratory.

 

47 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Looks like a solution in search of a problem.

 

 

Quite right, but even more important, not all roads leading to downtown (and through Midtown) need to be high-speed thoroughfares. Outbound traffic can (and does) turn left on Holman, then right on Crawford.  Done.

 

It actually sounds like you are the one looking for a problem. I don't understand how a few drawings on paper for one experimental example is igniting this. Its not needed at all.

 

EDIT: By the way, this should go without saying that I'm fine with and appreciate the feedback, however, I will say its easy to criticize a full week after this was initially conceived instead of being a part of its initial conception where your concerns and wilcals concerns could have been addressed. This is by no means a complete done deal, but it is a potential idea that shouldn't be dismissed or shutdown just because it doesn't tickle a particular fancy, or makes you squeamish in regards to the sensitivities of hypothetical people we don't know about.

 

EDIT: Finally I think its kind of funny how we are defending a parking lot. Old habits die hard I guess.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Yeah I really could care less. That wasn't the objective of this exercise. This was a very isolated discussion between I and @Toopicky to explore a potential planning scenario. I also could care less about more connections to downtown. The immediate goal would be better connections from Almeda to Elgin as both are major thoroughfares which have an interruption point at this intersection from seamlessly connecting with one another. If nimbyism is a parameter which you want to throw in then go ahead, but that would be a severe limitation on an exercise which is suppose to be experimental and exploratory.

 

 

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to be an angry internet guy or anything. I like fleshing out ideas like this. 

 

It really does make logical sense to increase car throughput, but not in a community-sense to me. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

 

Sorry, I really wasn't trying to be an angry internet guy or anything. I like fleshing out ideas like this. 

 

It really does make logical sense to increase car throughput, but not in a community-sense to me. 

 

No apologies necessary. It was one of those things where it kinda came out of left field, and I was like...wait I thought that was over with.

 

I mean you run a site devoted to issues such as this.

 

I totally get it, regarding the community-sense, but then again I also don't take the notion of community at face value. Like immediately I'm asking; what is at risk to the community, what would this actually disrupt community wise, and is the opposition more self-serving or malice or ineptitude or attention seeking or genuine fear for their own well being. I don't know the answer to these things because I don't live in that hood, but often times when people play the "community card" they don't know either. In which I can't say that could constitute an argument against something that could be viable for a situation.

Edited by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree that this would fix a problem that doesn't really exist. I used to live within a couple blocks of this area, and the biggest issue I remember was that section of Crawford's excessive width. Easing car throughput seems like the exact opposite of what I would want here. I'd rather see a couple lanes of Crawford go away and have Chenevert reconnected. Maybe also connect Jackson to Mosley.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HoustonMidtown said:

49151937643_aa04c4b15c_k.jpgUntitled by Houston Midtown, on Flickr

 

 

 

It seems like they've stripped out more of the original building than the renderings had indicated, unless the plan is to build it back similar to what was there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 7:44 AM, Houston19514 said:

 

Looks like a solution in search of a problem.

 

 

Quite right, but even more important, not all roads leading to downtown (and through Midtown) need to be high-speed thoroughfares. Outbound traffic can (and does) turn left on Holman, then right on Crawford.  Done.

 

I don't think it'd automatically be a high-speed thoroughfare, especially since Almeda itself isn't a high-speed road in this area. Put in wide sidewalks, heavy landscaping, bike lanes, and don't have it be more than two lanes wide. This would also eliminate a pedestrian crossing for cars, so that'd be safer for everyone. With the space left over, you can add green space, another garage with ground floor retail, etc. Wouldn't be a bad idea.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2019 at 11:38 AM, Sunstar said:

 

It seems like they've stripped out more of the original building than the renderings had indicated, unless the plan is to build it back similar to what was there. 

 

From what it seems to me looking at the renders is that they will add on top of the existing second floor to match what is the existing roof line so it will be one continuous roof line with the art deco looking parapet. They have to take out what doesn't match up first before they can create the new stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, midtowndweller said:

9ZjJVaH.jpg

 I'm sorry im.a proud former resident of third ward. But this feels like nothing more than black nimbyism

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...