Dakota79

Midtown Sears to Become Houston's Innovation District

Recommended Posts

nope, that area won't be as shady, but now they're going to move to downtown, and in 5 years, downtown will die a slow death and become a seedy area again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, UtterlyUrban said:

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

I agree.

 

 I would consider most of what we hear about the homeless to be fake news. 

 

 

Share this post


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

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

While I agree, there the majority simply don’t want to work. My GF works for Star of Hope as a case manager and she tells me most of the homeless just don’t want basic responsibilities. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

 

Yes, but unfortunately we are in the wrong state of that type of compassion. We have a world class medical center, we should also be leading in mental health and drug programs/funds. It's the same industry after all.

 

Waiting on the UT Health Continuum of Care Campus for Behavioral Health and the Menninger Clinic expansion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

 

Yes, but unfortunately we are in the wrong state of that type of compassion. We have a world class medical center, we should also be leading in mental health and drug programs/funds. It's the same industry after all.

 

Waiting on the UT Health Continuum of Care Campus for Behavioral Health and the Menninger Clinic expansion

 

Not sure whose more compassionate state might do it better. These same types of people are dying of Hepatitis A and suffering from diseases that have been effectively controlled in the modern world since before WWII in California. 

 

No one's political orthodoxy is providing an answer, that's for sure. Caring for these people has to be among the most difficult tasks one can imagine. 

 

 

Edited by Nate99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Nate99 said:

 

Not sure whose more compassionate state might do it better. These same types of people are dying of Hepatitis A and suffering from diseases that have been effectively controlled in the modern world since before WWII in California. 

 

No one's political orthodoxy is providing an answer, that's for sure. Caring for these people has to be among the most difficult tasks one can imagine. 

 

 

 

(New York, NY, December 12, 2017) Mental Illness Policy Org released the first study to rank all fifty states based on the percentage of state-controlled funds each state spends on mental illness. States that spend a higher percentage of their budget on mental illness are ranked as generous and those that spend a lower percentage are ranked as stingy.

 

This study found the most generous states in mental health spending are Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. The stingiest states are Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Delaware. The most generous states, Maine and Pennsylvania (5.6%), allocates eight times more as a percentage of total state spending than the stingiest state, Arkansas (.7%).

Read more at: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/national-studies/funds-for-mental-illness-is-your-state-generous-or-stingy-press-release.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

 

(New York, NY, December 12, 2017) Mental Illness Policy Org released the first study to rank all fifty states based on the percentage of state-controlled funds each state spends on mental illness. States that spend a higher percentage of their budget on mental illness are ranked as generous and those that spend a lower percentage are ranked as stingy.

 

This study found the most generous states in mental health spending are Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. The stingiest states are Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Delaware. The most generous states, Maine and Pennsylvania (5.6%), allocates eight times more as a percentage of total state spending than the stingiest state, Arkansas (.7%).

Read more at: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/national-studies/funds-for-mental-illness-is-your-state-generous-or-stingy-press-release.html

 

Here in stingy Texas, we have a lower homeless population rate than in generous Pennsylvania, Maine, or Arizona.   Whatever value proportional state spending on mental health has, it has nothing to do with homeless rates. 

 

Pennsylvania (generous) spends $1.98 million in mental health dollars per chronically homeless individual (CHI) (your link's stat x total state spending/# of CHI) while right next door in Delaware (stingy) they spend only $638k/CHI with an almost identical rate of chronic homelessness overall.  If tripling the available expenditures for a given population that clearly needs that particular service has no impact on the rate of homelessness, you might be barking up the wrong policy tree, unless you measure virtue by what proportion of the public kitty you get dedicated to your particular cause without regard to need or results.

 

https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1500&fn[]=2900&fn[]=6100&fn[]=10100&fn[]=14100

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Total_state_government_expenditures

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe Apple chose Austin for their new $1 billion campus.

 

We have so little tech. Amazon, and now Apple skipped us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

Can't believe Apple chose Austin for their new $1 billion campus.

 

We have so little tech. Amazon, and now Apple skipped us.

^^^ austin already harbors TONS of citizen migrants in from california.  therefore, their new and prospective labor force shall be skilled, knowledgeable, and quite prepared for the culture of apple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gclass said:

^^^ austin already harbors TONS of citizen migrants in from california.  therefore, their new and prospective labor force shall be skilled, knowledgeable, and quite prepared for the culture of apple.

 

Plus, Apple already had a big operation in Austin.

 

As someone who currently works in the tech "bubble" and previously worked in Seattle's tech bubble, I've never understood the attraction of either Seattle of Austin.  San Francisco makes sense because of air transportation links, climate, and a good number of big city amenities for a city its size.  But in my experience, both Seattle and Austin are more hype than reality.

 

Austin, at least, has a big university churning out people who can think.  Seattle has banana slugs and guys commuting to work at video game companies on unicycles wearing kilts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, editor said:

 

Plus, Apple already had a big operation in Austin.

 

As someone who currently works in the tech "bubble" and previously worked in Seattle's tech bubble, I've never understood the attraction of either Seattle of Austin.  San Francisco makes sense because of air transportation links, climate, and a good number of big city amenities for a city its size.  But in my experience, both Seattle and Austin are more hype than reality.

 

Austin, at least, has a big university churning out people who can think.  Seattle has banana slugs and guys commuting to work at video game companies on unicycles wearing kilts.

^^^ you are hereby correct upon all accounts.  however, at the very end of the day, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE COST OF LIVING!  san fran, is not only basically landlocked to some degree, it's incredibly expensive to live and work there.  not to mention, waaaaay too many mother nature incidents and issues...

Edited by gclass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, editor said:

 

Plus, Apple already had a big operation in Austin.

 

As someone who currently works in the tech "bubble" and previously worked in Seattle's tech bubble, I've never understood the attraction of either Seattle of Austin.  San Francisco makes sense because of air transportation links, climate, and a good number of big city amenities for a city its size.  But in my experience, both Seattle and Austin are more hype than reality.

 

Austin, at least, has a big university churning out people who can think.  Seattle has banana slugs and guys commuting to work at video game companies on unicycles wearing kilts.

As does Seattle. The University of Washington is located there. Great city that also has tons of big city amenities. I think you're selling Seattle short here.

Edited by Spades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spades said:

As does Seattle. The University of Washington is located there. Great city that also has tons of big city amenities. I think you're selling Seattle short here.

 

You're right — I'm a little hard on Seattle.  But mostly because I lived there for a while, opened up a business there, made a couple of partnerships in the tech space, then moved away when I realized it wasn't everything everyone thinks it is.

 

The quality of the graduates of the University of Washington that I met was... subpar.  But then, I've experienced that with a bunch of other supposedly top-notch schools: Northwestern, UNLV, Rutgers.  It seems to be that excellence is more about the individual than the school they went to.  One of the best employees I ever had was a woman who graduated from one of the crappiest colleges in downstate Illinois.  

 

I never tried hiring anyone out of Austin, so my image of its graduates hasn't been tarnished by personal experience yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 3:53 PM, editor said:

 

Plus, Apple already had a big operation in Austin.

 

As someone who currently works in the tech "bubble" and previously worked in Seattle's tech bubble, I've never understood the attraction of either Seattle of Austin.  San Francisco makes sense because of air transportation links, climate, and a good number of big city amenities for a city its size.  But in my experience, both Seattle and Austin are more hype than reality.

 

Austin, at least, has a big university churning out people who can think.  Seattle has banana slugs and guys commuting to work at video game companies on unicycles wearing kilts.

 

Austin may suck for a lot of things. it has one huge advantage. the hill country. some beautiful land out there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it has some beautiful hill country but Houston has really started to take advantage of its own natural beauty and making the best of what we have in the gulf plains region. All the trees Houston has planted over the years are finally starting to mature and these past few fall days have shown just how beautiful this area can be. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah it has some beautiful hill country but Houston has really started to take advantage of its own natural beauty and making the best of what we have in the gulf plains region. All the trees Houston has planted over the years are finally starting to mature and these past few fall days have shown just how beautiful this area can be. 

I agree!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly not my money, but it would be awesome of Rice to also use some of its endowment to undergo a significant expansion in enrollment or significant expansion into nanotechnology or bioinformatics. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this will be an incubator for Rice Science & Technology. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rendering depicts the building as it would be seen from the north because, as I recall, that's where a small parking lot is right now.  I like the idea of a bit of landscaping to spruce the area up, but Rice will need to be diligent with respect to the transient population that accumulates in the area (particularly on Wheeler/Richmond).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, houstontexasjack said:

I think the rendering depicts the building as it would be seen from the north because, as I recall, that's where a small parking lot is right now.  I like the idea of a bit of landscaping to spruce the area up, but Rice will need to be diligent with respect to the transient population that accumulates in the area (particularly on Wheeler/Richmond).

 

Agreed that this is the view from the North. Otherwise that crosswalk would be where Richmond is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHoP Architects is one of bigger architecture firms out there right now. Really like their stuff. I don't believe we have any of their designs thus far in Houston. From the renderings they are already taken a fantastic approach to the site. Yet another big project happening in 2019, and as others have said, this looks to be a banner year in terms of development for Houston.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 1:46 PM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

nope, that area won't be as shady, but now they're going to move to downtown, and in 5 years, downtown will die a slow death and become a seedy area again.

 

I feel like the downtown homeless population is exploding recently.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they would be adding a couple floors on top of that building, too, based on the first rendering.  Glad to see the structure can support the extra weight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kbates2 said:

 

I feel like the downtown homeless population is exploding recently.

Cities like New York and Atlanta are sending us there homeless people... talked to one downtown that wanted money to get back to Atlanta after they put him on a bus to Houston. 

 

Dont know the validity of the statement but that’s what he told me haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, rechlin said:

Looks like they would be adding a couple floors on top of that building, too, based on the first rendering.  Glad to see the structure can support the extra weight.

 

Actually it won't. What it looks like they are going to do is gut the a large portion of the interior, then brace the existing super structure, and then build a new super structure to house the new additions. You can get a sense of what they are going to do if you look closely at the second render. At the top you will see the some structural beams and columns and it looks like they are going to carry the load of the extended walk that is in the interior of that atrium with tension rods. Neat idea. Its also going to be expensive as hell. Not necessarily the tension rod structure and walks in the atrium, but the windows. If an atrium is more than 2 stories tall then all walls and specifically curtain wall glazing will have to be fire rated (very pricey). I'm not to worried about all of this though sense it looks like Rice wants this to be the crown jewel of this innovation hub, so all the money will be thrown into this.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kbates2 said:

 

I feel like the downtown homeless population is exploding recently.

Cities like New York and Atlanta are sending us there homeless people... talked to one downtown that wanted money to get back to Atlanta after they put him on a bus to Houston. 

 

Dont know the validity of the statement but that’s what he told me haha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one the big challenges will be managing the transient population during the transition period.  The cap parks in the renders above aren't included in the highway funding, and money will have to be raised separately.  TXDOT hasn't yet provided a timeline on the freeway trenching itself--I think it's pretty likely the Ion will be done well before the trenching is complete.  Rice will still need to make the area around the building presentable if it is to serve the function they hope.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

500 addicts and mentally ill can really mess up an area while Turner sits.  I wonder what Turner would do if those 500 people were camping and dealing and deficating on his block?  Do we think that he could find “solutions” if they were on his street Rather than yours or mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived in some apartments near here for a while. I don’t see as many homeless anymore and last I heard Metro built a parking loft for buses under 59 where a homeless encampment was. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

Actually it won't. What it looks like they are going to do is gut the a large portion of the interior, then brace the existing super structure, and then build a new super structure to house the new additions. You can get a sense of what they are going to do if you look closely at the second render. At the top you will see the some structural beams and columns and it looks like they are going to carry the load of the extended walk that is in the interior of that atrium with tension rods. Neat idea. 

 

Noticed the same thing. 

 

Also, they've added a ton of glass to the original facade, and it looks like they've added a very large skylight over the atrium. It'll retain some of the original art-deco elements, but have a lot more natural light than the original. 

 

Also looks like there might be some ground floor retail (?).

Edited by Angostura
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

" . . . the renovated 270,000-square-foot building will be renamed The Ion."

Wouldn't a more "positive" name be "the Cation?" :) Let's see how many science types go "ugh."

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy for what is to come but I can't lie, I'm hurt. The Midtown Sears holds a special place in my heart. My brothers and I spent hours in the toy department in the 70's and 80's. Our mother bought us the huge Sears wish book every holiday. We'd take the book to Sears and picked out our gifts. Good times. 

 

The innovation hub will be a bright spot in Midtown.  

  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Okay, I'm forced to get up on my soap box here, sorry if this offends you, or maybe not -

 

Well, I and I'm sure many others on this forum, are very PROUD of the work that Mayor Turner has done to improve the image of Houston.  Indeed, all of our mayors in recent decades have gone to great lengths to improve the quality of life. 

 

The only mayor I can remember from my childhood that I learned I could never ever support was Louie Welch.  Now, HE was a complete idiot if there ever was one.  And, trust me, in this day and age, RWNJ's (you can look that one up elsewhere if you need clarification) are all too plentiful in this country. 

 

So, I welcome Houston's many recent forward thinking mayors, including Turner.  In fact the past 2 decades or so have seen the best city mayors of Houston and have left other cities and their mayor "in the dust".  There are many other examples of mayors and policies that were once thought too "progressive" to be acceptable here, too numerous to list.  But, we as Houstonians did the unthinkable and tried these policies and low and behold, they work for the good of all of Houston, not just the upper wealthy elite, or just the homeless population.  As we have seen lately, no one is perfect in public office, and some are downright evil and corrupt beyond belief.  I have seen no such mayor in Houston in many decades of my life in Houston, with the exception as mentioned above.

 

The fact that we have moved so forward as to think of the old Sears store downtown as a new innovation district is more proof at just how progressive and people oriented Houston's brand of capitalism has become.  There is and will always be a profit motive, but the PEOPLE of Houston are demanding more and more bang for their buck in the way of a better quality of life, yet still understand how important the profit motive is to obtain the best.  I would think all of what I've said here is obvious, but comments to the contrary just proves that not everyone that is intelligent enough to participate in the HAIF blogs, are enlightened enough to stop making nonsensical untrue comments about Houston's leadership.  It is simply non-constructive to continually criticize good leadership like ours for the sake of argument and because you disagree with their policies, EVEN though the facts show these policies are working for the vast majority of Houston and it's people.  There's a real reason why Houston maintains the boom that started at least 20 years ago and continues to this day - it's sensible leadership and way of life endorsed by that leadership.

 

I say these things because after reading some of the crap (not too many over all thank goodness) these ideas need to be said in this open forum for all to see and read.  If we can put up with some nasty commenters words on here, we can put up with my more constructive comments.  Period.

 

But, I digest.......

 

 

 

Commie....😀

 

The one area Houston needs to improve is transportation. From the way we handle our road "repairs" and construction to mass transit, this is the only thing left standing in the way of that "world class" image some say we're lacking. And I guess after driving down Richmond Ave for 10 seconds, it's hard not to agree with that....but overall, we have made progress even in these areas over the last couple of decades. It's amazing to think we didn't even have light rail here until 2004. SMFH....

Edited by por favor gracias
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, por favor gracias said:

 

Commie....😀

 

The one area Houston needs to improve is transportation. From the way we handle our road "repairs" and construction to mass transit, this is the only thing left standing in the way of that "world class" image some say we're lacking. And I guess after driving down Richmond Ave for 10 seconds, it's hard not to agree with that....but overall, we have made progress even in these areas over the last couple of decades. It's amazing to think we didn't even have light rail here until 2004. SMFH....

I was just thinking that coming home today from work. Like wow we only had cars and buses! All the more reason to vote yes to Metro’s plan this Fall. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DrLan34 said:

Would be nice to see a more comprehensive sidewalk program.

This would come with brand new wide sidewalks down all those corridors. It’s transit access on all levels. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

This would come with brand new wide sidewalks down all those corridors. It’s transit access on all levels. 

I meant city wide. Yeah, this development looks great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I was just thinking that coming home today from work. Like wow we only had cars and buses! All the more reason to vote yes to Metro’s plan this Fall. 

 

LOL just got back home after literally sitting on Franklin St for 25 minutes trying to get to 59 North this evening.

 

Not that I won't vote for Metro's plan, and it will absolutely help considering the lack of alternatives, but I know I'm not the only Houstonian who would like to see a less intrusive, faster service transit system here that can really move people. It would have to be either elevated or submerged to be that efficient, and I'm not sure how feasible a subway network around, say, the inner loop area would work, but we do already have a mini-sized one at IAH, plus lots of other underground development in downtown and of course the Galleria. Is that "as far as we can dig?" I'm all for more light rail, I just hate how much our version of it interferes with street/pedestrian traffic. It creates almost as much automobile traffic as it alleviates. If subways aren't feasible, then elevate it. There's going to be 8 million people here in the next 7-8 years and 10 million by 2040....and I really don't want to imagine what traffic is going to be like if we still don't have these kinds of alternatives by then, much less moving forward.

 

Sorry for staying off topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DrLan34 said:

I meant city wide. Yeah, this development looks great.

 

Agree 100%.

 

32 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

This would come with brand new wide sidewalks down all those corridors. It’s transit access on all levels. 

 

On a side note, I've always wondered why they place so many pipes directly under our streets, rather than the sidewalks. Any time something goes wrong, we have to tear up the street, and almost every time, the street is in much worse condition than it was before the work. I'm sure there's a good explanation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, por favor gracias said:

 

LOL just got back home after literally sitting on Franklin St for 25 minutes trying to get to 59 North this evening.

 

Not that I won't vote for Metro's plan, and it will absolutely help considering the lack of alternatives, but I know I'm not the only Houstonian who would like to see a less intrusive, faster service transit system here that can really move people. It would have to be either elevated or submerged to be that efficient, and I'm not sure how feasible a subway network around, say, the inner loop area would work, but we do already have a mini-sized one at IAH, plus lots of other underground development in downtown and of course the Galleria. Is that "as far as we can dig?" I'm all for more light rail, I just hate how much our version of it interferes with street/pedestrian traffic. It creates almost as much automobile traffic as it alleviates. If subways aren't feasible, then elevate it. There's going to be 8 million people here in the next 7-8 years and 10 million by 2040....and I really don't want to imagine what traffic is going to be like if we still don't have these kinds of alternatives by then, much less moving forward.

 

Sorry for staying off topic.

I think part of what makes Metros plan great is they focused on making it affordable and they made routes that they felt could be permanent and took advantage of having rail run straight to Hobby. And best of all the way they focused on paying for it allows the city to build quickly with no affect to tax payers. That’s a huge deal. The rest of the system is upgradeable. From that point I think Houston will be more accepting for commuter rail to the burbs. What’s interesting is the suburbs, areas that at one time fought public transit, are wanting service. This is a good time to be a Houstonian and see this city develop .

Edited by j_cuevas713
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, por favor gracias said:

 

LOL just got back home after literally sitting on Franklin St for 25 minutes trying to get to 59 North this evening.

 

Not that I won't vote for Metro's plan, and it will absolutely help considering the lack of alternatives, but I know I'm not the only Houstonian who would like to see a less intrusive, faster service transit system here that can really move people. It would have to be either elevated or submerged to be that efficient, and I'm not sure how feasible a subway network around, say, the inner loop area would work, but we do already have a mini-sized one at IAH, plus lots of other underground development in downtown and of course the Galleria. Is that "as far as we can dig?" I'm all for more light rail, I just hate how much our version of it interferes with street/pedestrian traffic. It creates almost as much automobile traffic as it alleviates. If subways aren't feasible, then elevate it. There's going to be 8 million people here in the next 7-8 years and 10 million by 2040....and I really don't want to imagine what traffic is going to be like if we still don't have these kinds of alternatives by then, much less moving forward.

 

 

We don't necessarily need grade-separated transit to reduce traffic. Every park-and-ride bus into the CBD represents 40 cars that aren't on the freeway. And having transit is only one piece of the puzzle. People have to actually choose to take it, and this will only happen when alternatives to single-occupany vehicles are either cheaper, faster, or a better experience. Adding MaX lanes on freeways, and more high-comfort buses (with wi-fi, etc.) can help with two of those, but the third (cheaper) needs to come from how we prioritize development in the city. You can't design everything for cars, and then be shocked and dismayed that people use cars to get around. Basically, it needs to be more expensive to park cars (or we need congestion pricing to drive on or inside 610).

 

If we eliminate parking minimums, and encourage an environment in which people EXPECT to pay for parking (which is the case in the areas of the city without mandatory minimums), you get less land area devoted to parking, higher taxable value per square mile and lower vehicle miles traveled per capita (since things are closer together). The higher density will allow some people to live close enough to walk, bike or take local transit (bus, light rail) to work, and pricing parking at the cost it requires to provide it ($200-300/month) encourages transit and carpooling, which in turn reduce the number of vehicles on the freeways.

 

Eventually, you may even get to a level of activity density to justify grade-separated transit.

 

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BisNow: Coworking Options Headed To Midway's CityCentre And GreenStreet

 

Quote

..The Amsterdam-based company inked a 63K SF lease at GreenStreet in Downtown and 60K SF at CityCentre in West Houston. 

The GreenStreet location will serve as a launchpad for innovative, nimble and collaborative companies seeking to take advantage of Houston's emerging Innovation District, Lionstone Investments Vice President Fernando Urrutia said in a release. Fast-growth companies seek the flexibility and collaborative environment curated at Spaces, he said.   

The Innovation District is a 4-mile district from Downtown to the Texas Medical Center. Last week, Rice University revealed design plans for the former Sears building, dubbed The Ion, which will anchor the district. GreenStreet signed an office lease with MassChallenge, a startup accelerator program...

 

 

Edited by kdog08
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now