cspwal Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I'd be concerned whether demolishing the pierce elevated will just produce a whole bunch of parking lots... is there a similar case of this kind of reroute going through? And things where an elevated highway cut downtown off from a river front or the coast are not what I'm talking about but just removing a highway like this to just one corridor 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I'd be concerned whether demolishing the pierce elevated will just produce a whole bunch of parking lots... is there a similar case of this kind of reroute going through? And things where an elevated highway cut downtown off from a river front or the coast are not what I'm talking about but just removing a highway like this to just one corridorYup. Even in San Francisco, the removal of the Central Parkway left freeway ROW-shaped surface parking lots for decades, with them not getting built on until just a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Of course which is worse for walking - walking under a freeway, or walking alongside a parking lot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite_jim Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Stick your face in front a running tailpipe and tell me that's a livable environment for future development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Actually, I am not trolling. Houston isn't as cool as it was in the 80s. There's more to do, and more restaurants, but it's not quirky and cool. Tearing down the Pierce would contribute to a greater loss of cool. If I wanted urban core stuff, I would move to somewhere that grew that way.Trollolololololololol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Who said the Pierce was going to discourage development? I remember some veiled comment about the "canyon" could discourage EaDo, but Midtown? As it stands, the Pierce isn't going to do anything bad to Midtown, which has been improving for years.His "argument" was that the Pierce shouldn't be removed because Downtown was better before development. So, he wants to keep the Pierce, because having no development is better than any.I know, it doesn't make sense to me either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I mean, the idea of opening up downtown to the south and west is not the only reason to take down the Pierce, but it's a decent one. The Elevated Park idea is nice but it's not gonna happen.I just don't see how keeping the Pierce to discourage development is anywhere near a great, or even decent, idea. There are good reason to keep it, like the park, but saying downtown is better off staying a 9-5 center of activity just does not jive with the way downtown is unfolding. I think there's more than enough proof that the pierce elevated doesn't discourage development. It staggered the growth of the area when it was put in because it ripped the fabric of the area (as did every freeway, and is why 225 wasn't completed as a good example), but so did every freeway. it's taken midtown however many years for it to get to a point where it can be successful in spite of the elevated being there.  Might removing the pierce promote more growth? It will be just as easy to make that direct connection as it is to say that building a rail line promotes growth. Maybe the only thing we can really say is that growth has occurred, and continues to occur in spite of the pierce. There's no long term guarantee that removing the freeway will be a positive impact, there are plenty of short term examples, but there are lots of long term examples that building/expanding freeways in the core do far more harm than good and it takes decades for recovery to occur, if ever. Which is the whole reason I'm fearful of the re-alignment. But anyway, this thread's about the possibility of the pierce being re purposed into a park. to that end, it's not a nice idea, it's a horrible idea. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Yeah I think re-purposing it as a park would be the worst of both worlds - it creates a large barrier on the east side of downtown without really removing a barrier in the middle of downtown. Â A linear park like that would be nice, but we already have one - buffalo bayou 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Back when I went to A&M, there would be constant talk in message boards about how "Old Army" was much better--stories of dorm rooms with no air conditioning even into the late 1990s, having food fights in the dining hall instead of the Chick-fil-a Express in the basement, and the like. The whole "urban core" idea that "Abandon the Pierce" promote is based on what San Francisco or New York City is like. Even the whole "Pierce Skypark" idea is cribbed straight from the High Line!Uh... wouldn't the people who want Houston to stay car-centric and suburban be the Old Army in this case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite_jim Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Do you guys even know what a "barrier" is? That __________Park sure is a barrier to _____________, I'm sure that barrier will depress all the properties surrounding the park. That Hermann Park sure is a barrier to the Medical Center/Museum District, I'm sure that barrier will depress all the properties surrounding the park. That Memorial Park sure is a barrier to the West End, I'm sure that barrier will depress all the properties surrounding the park. That Midtown Park sure is a barrier to 4th Ward/Midtown, I'm sure that barrier will depress all the properties surrounding the park. That Water Wall Park sure is a barrier to the Galleria/Williams Tower, I'm sure that barrier will depress all the properties surrounding the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Uh... wouldn't the people who want Houston to stay car-centric and suburban be the Old Army in this case?Not a great example, but the main idea I was thinking was "unpretentious".However, the use of rhetoric like "car-centric" says all I need to know about where you stand on issues like this. Edited October 2, 2015 by IronTiger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Not a great example, but the main idea I was thinking was "unpretentious".However, the use of rhetoric like "car-centric" says all I need to know about where you stand on issues like this. Are you saying that Houston's development scheme since World War II has not been primarily oriented toward automobile access? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 Are you saying that Houston's development scheme since World War II has not been primarily oriented toward automobile access? It has been, not that there's anything wrong with that. But use of words is also important. One who refers to himself or herself as "pro-choice" would tend not to use "pro-life" for the opposition, for instance. Secondly, the use of "car-centric" also assumes that pedestrian use is somehow mutually exclusive. Adding sidewalks to a previously unutilized ROW is one such example where a city could become more pedestrian friendly without sacrificing mobility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curbur Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 Yup. Even in San Francisco, the removal of the Central Parkway left freeway ROW-shaped surface parking lots for decades, with them not getting built on until just a few years ago. But you can't say it isn't looking beautiful in that part of downtown SF since they have started to get developed though, or that it's not adding to SF's skyline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terra002 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Demolish! I would like to see downtown start moving into midtown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinsanity02 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Many of you loathe the Pierce Elevated. Personally I have no hatred or love toward it. The area I find awful is the freeways and jails at the confluence of White Oak and Buffalo Bayou. This area could have been a beautiful park area. What a lost oppurtunity. Thank God for the fixing up of Buffalo Bayou. They have done a beautiful job. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terra002 Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 I 100% agree!  Many of you loathe the Pierce Elevated. Personally I have no hatred or love toward it. The area I find awful is the freeways and jails at the confluence of White Oak and Buffalo Bayou. This area could have been a beautiful park area. What a lost oppurtunity. Thank God for the fixing up of Buffalo Bayou. They have done a beautiful job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astros148 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 pierce elevated needs to get demolished, think it would solve the big greyhound issue as well with all the hobos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'm quite a bit late to this party, but....  Why in the holy hell would anyone want to tear apart another stretch of I-45 for a park, or parking, or any other such nonsense? With there being over 6.5 million in the greater Houston Metro area, many of them using that corridor, that would be a terrible and very costly mistake. Our traffic is borked bad enough as it is, and y'all are only asking... nigh, BEGGING for it to become much worse with an idea like this. Or so it seems, from what I'm reading here. Would anyone care to enlighten this knuckle dragging neanderthal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cspwal Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Demolishing the Pierce elevated (or at least abandoning that right of way) is part of the I-45 and US-59/I-69 redesign for downtown, which TxDot has put forward as the plan.  The current plan is to reroute I-45 along the East side of downtown to be next to 59, buried in a trench for most of it.  It's part of a larger plan of widening 45 all the way out to the Woodlands. There are some problems with it; the site http://houstonfreeways.com/analysishas a good breakdown of the problems  Another thread on it is here:http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/32167-txdot-plan-for-downtown-and-i-45-analysis-and-problem-list/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxDave Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm quite a bit late to this party, but....Why in the holy hell would anyone want to tear apart another stretch of I-45 for a park, or parking, or any other such nonsense?With there being over 6.5 million in the greater Houston Metro area, many of them using that corridor, that would be a terrible and very costly mistake. Our traffic is borked bad enough as it is, and y'all are only asking... nigh, BEGGING for it to become much worse with an idea like this.Or so it seems, from what I'm reading here. Would anyone care to enlighten this knuckle dragging neanderthal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxDave Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I'm quite a bit late to this party, but....Why in the holy hell would anyone want to tear apart another stretch of I-45 for a park, or parking, or any other such nonsense?With there being over 6.5 million in the greater Houston Metro area, many of them using that corridor, that would be a terrible and very costly mistake. Our traffic is borked bad enough as it is, and y'all are only asking... nigh, BEGGING for it to become much worse with an idea like this.Or so it seems, from what I'm reading here. Would anyone care to enlighten this knuckle dragging neanderthal?Agreed - pure removal of such a significant route would create major problems and chaos. But a planned redirection of the traffic flows could open up those areas that don't really add any benefit to the pathIf I-45 can be redirected to the east side of downtown, or even on an outer loop, removal of the Pierce elevated would reconnect Midtown with downtown and dramatically strengthen center city developmentPlus, not mentioned much is how nicely the Buffalo Bayou parks would connect to downtown without the elevated I-45 lanes on the west side of downtown. That amenity is still somewhat cut off today.While not an easy solution, good planning could provide both good transportation and nice city amenities for all 6.5+ million residents of the region 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) Plus, not mentioned much is how nicely the Buffalo Bayou parks would connect to downtown without the elevated I-45 lanes on the west side of downtown. That amenity is still somewhat cut off today.  Go look at the published plans. It's not mentioned much because it's not true. The portion of 45 that goes over the bayou will not be going away, it will become a spur and not have significantly less overhead lanes above the bayou area. Furthermore, they'll be adding grade level streets to the grid over the bayou.  That amenity will still be just as cut off as it is today. So as reasons go for removing the pierce elevated, this ain't one of 'em. Edited January 26, 2016 by samagon 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Here's an image of the most recent document published of the plans around downtown:   Link to full PDF: http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20150922_NHHIP_Seg3_Updates.pdf  by my count there are going to be more lanes overall crossing the bayou? heck, doesn't matter how many lanes. it could be 1 lane and it would be more than enough to obstruct. Edited January 27, 2016 by samagon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Here's an image of the most recent document published of the plans around downtown:   Link to full PDF: http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs5/20150922_NHHIP_Seg3_Updates.pdf  by my count there are going to be more lanes overall crossing the bayou? heck, doesn't matter how many lanes. it could be 1 lane and it would be more than enough to obstruct.  The integration may be better if they convert the bridge from a beam design to a more attractive arch or cable-stayed/extradosed design with a longer main span. It's the array of piers that causes the psychological barrier (more hiding spaces, more dangerous looking) rather than the deck itself. Edited January 27, 2016 by ADCS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I guess they might have less piers as the design will be a few decades newer using new processes, but how could they do a cable, arch, or any other bridge that's not beams and piers with the bridges having as many complex curves in them as the current design depicts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I guess they might have less piers as the design will be a few decades newer using new processes, but how could they do a cable, arch, or any other bridge that's not beams and piers with the bridges having as many complex curves in them as the current design depicts?  Here are a few examples of curved bridges with cable-stayed designs: http://structurae.net/structures/bridges-and-viaducts/cable-stayed-bridges-with-curved-deck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 oh yeah, I know it's possible to do a curved cable design. however, outside of the foot bridges referenced, all of the bridges are single curve, large radius. does any of the stuff going over the bayou appear that it could be done in this manner?  Don't answer that actually, because feasibility isn't really something I think there's any question about, it could be done. Throw the problem at some engineers, they'll find a solution. The real question is, do you think that txdot would pay for a cable bridge with multiple tight radius curves? we'll get piers, there'll be beams, it'll be glorious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 oh yeah, I know it's possible to do a curved cable design. however, outside of the foot bridges referenced, all of the bridges are single curve, large radius. does any of the stuff going over the bayou appear that it could be done in this manner?  Don't answer that actually, because feasibility isn't really something I think there's any question about, it could be done. Throw the problem at some engineers, they'll find a solution. The real question is, do you think that txdot would pay for a cable bridge with multiple tight radius curves? we'll get piers, there'll be beams, it'll be glorious. I actually do think that it's possible to get the city, the Midtown TIRZ or the Parks District to throw some cash at the bridge project to enhance its visual and pedestrian impact. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a signature addition to what has increasingly become Houston's capstone amenity. I'll certainly be asking around about how we can get funding for the project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 I actually do think that it's possible to get the city, the Midtown TIRZ or the Parks District to throw some cash at the bridge project to enhance its visual and pedestrian impact. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a signature addition to what has increasingly become Houston's capstone amenity. I'll certainly be asking around about how we can get funding for the project.It would be nice to have a cool bridge, but I fear a giant white arch appearing in every western view (something not obstructive over the bayou or above). The columns are not my first choice but some multicolored LED lights could spruce it up without blowing the budget.Getting rid of the Pierce Elevated would help level the disappointment of creating an even larger barrier between Downtown and the immediate neighborhood to the north. If we're getting the Great Wall of 45/10, why leave the Pierce Elevated? I'd rather be punched in the face once than twice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.