I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[cspwal]

2 hours ago, Triton said:

Yes, but I dont remember a specific relocation spot specified. 

 

It looks like Burnett transit center; #3 on the map

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/Houston/20180904-0013-2000.jpg

[Triton]

2 minutes ago, cspwal said:

 

It looks like Burnett transit center; #3 on the map

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/Houston/20180904-0013-2000.jpg

I totally missed that during the presentation. Great catch! 

 

I don't know what yall think but all these proposals seem absolutely great for the north side of downtown. They said this would take over 20 years to fully realize but if they can get even half of these proposals down to real construction projects, I would be very happy! 

[Triton]

Wow!

[EllenOlenska]

Okay, so what I don't get honestly, is all this very theoretical density and the same huge parking lot east of the ballpark. It's kinda funny. 

[Moderators]

The great architect Frank Lloyd Wright

when ask of his opinion of Houston, 

he said Houston is like being in a

pinball machine _it's so different from

other cities. That's speak volumes

of the city's uniqueness. Houston

can proudly hold it's own with these

so called esthetic cities.

[ADCS]

It's more than a project - it's a renovation on a Haussmannian scale.

 

Triton: Removing previous discussion from this thread.

[Triton]

Let's please remain civil. Everyone is entitled to having their own opinion, whether you agree with it or not.

[Sparrow]

21 hours ago, Triton said:

Page appears to be up now: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/index.html

 

Will the multiple smaller caps in Midtown have an effect on driver visibility? I'd hypothesize that going from darkness to blinding sun several times in quick succession may cause some degree of visual challenge that may result in an elevated accident risk, especially when the sun is at a certain angle.

 

Why not just have a single cap for Midtown instead of three caps and four independent bridges? A single transition zone would provide more safety for drivers and a single cap would provide even more recreational space.

[corbs315]

21 hours ago, Triton said:

Page appears to be up now: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/index.html

 

Wow! the link for the midtown presentation is a trove of information and images! http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/midtown/public-open-house-midtown.pdf

 

(if this has already been shared i apologize for my lack of attention to detail)

[ADCS]

1 hour ago, Sparrow said:

 

Will the multiple smaller caps in Midtown have an effect on driver visibility? I'd hypothesize that going from darkness to blinding sun several times in quick succession may cause some degree of visual challenge that may result in an elevated accident risk, especially when the sun is at a certain angle.

 

Why not just have a single cap for Midtown instead of three caps and four independent bridges? A single transition zone would provide more safety for drivers and a single cap would provide even more recreational space.

 

My guess is that it has to do with ventilation requirements

[Triton]

4 hours ago, corbs315 said:

 

Wow! the link for the midtown presentation is a trove of information and images! http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/midtown/public-open-house-midtown.pdf

 

(if this has already been shared i apologize for my lack of attention to detail)

Oh yea! Can't wait for the other links to become available. It's pretty exciting to go through it all.

[Triton]

Let's stay on topic here and keep back the trollish comments. Thanks.

[Luminare]

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/east/public-meeting-east-side.pdf

 

From this presentation. Looks like they plan to keep the elevated and turn it into a highline.

[JJxvi]

For what benefit?  Are they going to allow commercial development underneath it or something?  It seems like a park on the ground, would be superior in basically every way, to an elevated park that didnt have to be elevated.  Seems like they'd basically be having to maintain this giant structure long term just for the convenience of not having to cross streets to walk the length of the park, and giving up ease of access, interation between the park and the streetscape, etc.

Edited September 12, 2018 by JJxvi

[Luminare]

10 minutes ago, JJxvi said:

For what benefit?  Are they going to allow commercial development underneath it or something?  It seems like a park on the ground, would be superior in basically every way, to an elevated park that didnt have to be elevated.  Seems like they'd basically be having to maintain this giant structure long term just for the convenience of not having to cross streets to walk the length of the park, and giving up ease of access, interation between the park and the streetscape, etc.

 

Have you actually been to the HighLine?

 

The neighborhoods that it crosses have gradually adapted to it in some interesting ways. You have some businesses and buildings that have entrances at the level of the highline and in other instances some want to draw you off of it, so you can stop by and then get back on.

 

I'm for either demolition or reinvention of the elevated at this point. Honestly though, what matters at the end of the day is the execution, consistency, and agreement by all who will be affected by it.

 

I was encouraged by the precedent images. They are actually taking ques and learning from those who have done these types of things before which means we will get at least something similar or its a launching point for something better.

[Naviguessor]

On the visionary plan, to me, it looks like an elevated Bike/walkway, much like as envisioned on the ease side cap, and not a preserved Pierce Elevated. 

[JJxvi]

I have not been to the High Line, but I know Houston, and also know enough to know that downtown Houston is also not Manhattan.  I understand the potential, but the highline is 3 or 4 times as long as the maximum possible distance here and its not like theres destinations nearby.  I could be convinced if maybe there was at least something at one end or the other of the pierce that people would want to walk to, so it would continue to be a transportation benefit. A park? I'd want it on the ground, then existing real estate doesnt have to interact with it in new and creative ways to begin with.

Edited September 12, 2018 by JJxvi

[ADCS]

Thing about the High Line is that it is functional as the best and fastest way to get from Hudson Yards to Greenwich Village, on foot. Given the lack of direct subway connections, it's arguably the best way altogether.

 

It's not beloved simply because it's pretty - it's both pretty and useful.

 

Converting the Pierce would just get you from one side of Midtown to another. It wouldn't serve any real purpose that isn't already largely served by other modes, better.

[intencity77]

I’m 100% for the elevated park on the Pierce. It’s not like New York trademarked the idea of an “elevated park”, so the “Houston is not Manhattan” arguement is useless. Cities copy each other in many ways, even Houston, it’s what they do. The EaDo park cap idea has been said and done years ago in Dallas. Should that also not be built because another city has already built a freeway park cap? Nonsense! 

 

As for destinations, it’s in the middle of Downtown and Midtown, two of the most thriving, upcoming districts in the city. More destinations will come along as time goes by. You have to have some long term vision. Just as those who built the Convention Center and Minute Maid Park did in the most desolate part of Downtown at the time. Now look at that area. It’s one of the hottest parts of town. 

 

A long, ground level park along the former Pierce Elevated would be an incredibly awful idea IMO as it would be bisected by way too many cross streets, interfering with the overall park experience. Having the park elevated would provide a continuous, non vehicular experience for the park user. Not to mention much better views of surrounding and future buildings nearby.

[Mr.Clean19]

Great plan and maybe something that didnt pop out at first. Runnels will be an underpass to downtown.

[Reporter]

Do both. Make the former Pierce land become several block wide, individual, ground level parks and then connect all the individual parks with skinny, light pedestrian/bike bridges. Don't keep the giant, wide cement structure that was formally the Pierce and put a park on top. 

[dbigtex56]

10 minutes ago, Reporter said:

Do both. Make the former Pierce land become several block wide, individual, ground level parks and then connect all the individual parks with skinny, light pedestrian/bike bridges. Don't keep the giant, wide cement structure that was formally the Pierce and put a park on top. 

Wouldn't that involve people having to climb or bike ~ two stories up to a bridge over streets, then the same distance down again on every block?
That seems like an expensive and inconvenient solution to the problem.
edit: Also, the Pierce wouldn't have to remain at its full width for the entire length of the park. In fact, it would be a more attractive design to have narrower paths opening up into wider 'rooms' dedicated to whatever activities might take place there. Also, this would allow for stairways and elevators to be more easily incorporated into the design.

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by dbigtex56
added info

[Reporter]

No. It's brilliant. Make each bridge be a slope. The bridges would be at ground level somewhere in the middle of each block and gradually rise to become overpasses over the street. People could still cross the street at ground level too. But bikers, joggers and walkers would be able to do their thing without having to deal with the traffic at every crossing. It would look like little hills on a roller coaster.

 

Inconvenient? Not for the bikers, joggers and walkers going over it, or the cars going under it. The extra amount of energy it would take to gradually climb each hill would be great exercise. 

 

Expensive? Who cares. Just get some rich sucker who needs a tax dodge to pay for it along with the other parks built over the freeways. What's another few million dollars to a plan already this ambitious?

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by bachanon
Removing abusive language.

[wilcal]

3 hours ago, JJxvi said:

For what benefit?  Are they going to allow commercial development underneath it or something?  It seems like a park on the ground, would be superior in basically every way, to an elevated park that didnt have to be elevated.  Seems like they'd basically be having to maintain this giant structure long term just for the convenience of not having to cross streets to walk the length of the park, and giving up ease of access, interation between the park and the streetscape, etc.

 

23 hours ago, Luminare said:

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/east/public-meeting-east-side.pdf

 

From this presentation. Looks like they plan to keep the elevated and turn it into a highline.

 

I was at the East End meeting and asked about this (and posted a page or two back).

 

At this point, they don't know if they are going to keep it elevated or not. 

 

They are planning on doing commercial development below and even "around it" if the right client came about. You could have buildings almost integrated into/around it. 

[wilcal]

2 hours ago, ADCS said:

Converting the Pierce would just get you from one side of Midtown to another. It wouldn't serve any real purpose that isn't already largely served by other modes, better.

 

 

It would be 1/4 of the "green ring" around downtown. 

 

The idea is to build hike/bike trails that would have as few as 10 street crossings to go all of the way around downtown. 

 

They would also build a park on the east side of 59 that the pierce park would dump into. 

[dbigtex56]

10 minutes ago, Reporter said:

It would look like little hills on a roller coaster.

Picture how wide a block is, then picture how high the Pierce Elevated is. Your plan is better suited for a roller coaster than for actual cyclists, joggers, or pedestrians. 

 

13 minutes ago, Reporter said:

The extra amount of energy it would take to gradually climb each hill would be great exercise for those fatties, so they shouldn't mind.

From your exuberance, gauche remarks, and dismissal of practical concerns, I have to assume you're very young.
You're not going to be a teenager forever, dear. Ideally a park should be accessible to all and not just whippersnappers. Consider also the ADA; those who implement the plans will be required to make it handicapped accessible.

[dbigtex56]

3 minutes ago, Reporter said:

So that's why you're always so angry. 

No. That would be Hedwig.
I'm not angry, nor am I many of the traits you attribute to me. Just pointing out that daydreams are fine, but there are practical considerations which remain firmly in the box (such as geometry and price tags).

[Reporter]

I'm not putting on my jogging suit anytime soon to run along the roller coaster bridges where the Pierce Elevated one stood but I don't think it's any more far fetched than some of the ideas in the renderings of the (proposed) park area around Minute Maid. What's that little orange band that looks like some kind of high tech bike path swirling around the parks anyway?

 

Price tags: I agree, everybody's cheap and I get it. They built a park over a freeway in Dallas. It wasn't cheap but they did it. Donors with a vision, wasn't it?  They are proposing to do the same thing in Houston and it won't be cheap. Things like this are possible. Maybe not likely, but possible.

 

Geometry isn't really an huge obstacle here. It might require a little 'creative geometry'. Maybe angling or curving the bridges so they aren't strait lines. Possibly raising the elevation of the center of the parks so that the grade isn't too steep. Maybe not even putting the low parts of the bridges in the middle. There's more than one way to build a bridge.

 

Also, no one would be forced to use them. Some pedestrians might still want to or have to cross at street level. My roller coaster bridges aren't going stop anyone from hurling themselves into moving traffic.

 

Now gauche this!

 

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Reporter

[Luminare]

22 minutes ago, Reporter said:

I'm not putting on my jogging suit anytime soon to run along the roller coaster bridges where the Pierce Elevated one stood but I don't think it's any more far fetched than some of the ideas in the renderings of the (proposed) park area around Minute Maid. What's that little orange band that looks like some kind of high tech bike path swirling around the parks anyway?

 

Price tags: I agree, everybody's cheap and I get it. They built a park over a freeway in Dallas. It wasn't cheap but they did it. Donors with a vision, wasn't it?  They are proposing to do the same thing in Houston and it won't be cheap. Things like this are possible. Maybe not likely, but possible.

 

Geometry isn't really an huge obstacle here. It might require a little 'creative geometry'. Maybe angling or curving the bridges so they aren't strait lines. Possibly raising the elevation of the center of the parks so that the grade isn't too steep. Maybe not even putting the low parts of the bridges in the middle. There's more than one way to build a bridge.

 

Also, no one would be forced to use them. Some pedestrians might still want to or have to cross at street level. My roller coaster bridges aren't going stop anyone from hurling themselves into moving traffic.

 

Now gauche this!

 

 

Yeah I don't understand why people are fitting in details that aren't there yet into a project that is still at the conceptual. Thats missing the point. The point is to get as many people on board the same vision. Thats what these meetings and visuals are for.

 

In my time in architecture and from being a student of architecture history, anything is possible given enough money, and time. Literally anything pretty much possible if you have those too. A project of this magnitude is going to be a fixture for decades of this city and while the city has fallen short sometimes in the past, when it comes to big ideas...this town has always slapped the money down to do it. Thats been the cities forte. If you have the resources and will then this town is your oyster.

 

EDIT: Along with all of this. What you said Reporter should once again be restated. NONE of the things that has been shown in these illustrations is out of the realm of possibility. In fact, has nobody been paying attention to the "Precedent Images". Thats what they are for. They literally should tell even the most skeptical, hey this has been done before and we believe the same can be done here.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Luminare

[samagon]

On 9/12/2018 at 11:55 AM, ADCS said:

Thing about the High Line is that it is functional as the best and fastest way to get from Hudson Yards to Greenwich Village, on foot. Given the lack of direct subway connections, it's arguably the best way altogether.

 

It's not beloved simply because it's pretty - it's both pretty and useful.

 

Converting the Pierce would just get you from one side of Midtown to another. It wouldn't serve any real purpose that isn't already largely served by other modes, better.

 

it would serve a purpose:

people get to go to a park near the mcdonalds/greyhound and not have to see the mcdonalds/greyhound.

 

Also, there's a lot of homeless people currently residing underneath 59, they will need to move somewhere. keep part of the pierce elevated so they can live under there.