Discovery Green Park At 1500 McKinney St.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Heh. Just created a new thread for this under "Downtown".

[ProHouston]

Could tree growth in the park be impeded by a concrete parking garage underneath it's soil base?

[MidtownCoog]

The underground garage is a bit unnecessary if you ask me.

This park is turning into an overblow production.

As I have said before; Level the lots, plant some grass and tress and start simple. Then add on to the park.

[travelguy_73]

The underground garage is a bit unnecessary if you ask me.

This park is turning into an overblow production.

As I have said before; Level the lots, plant some grass and tress and start simple. Then add on to the park.

My thoughts exactly. How many surface spaces are going to be eliminated to create the park? There doesn't seem to be a lack of parking in that area even with those spaces gone.

While I think the park needs a plan, let's not overengineer it. I would rather have a basic park space with benches, paths, trees, and water fountains, and spend the rest of the money on whatever infrastructure improvements are necessary to attract residential development adjacent to the space.

[sevfiv]

Could tree growth in the park be impeded by a concrete parking garage underneath it's soil base?

most definitely - depends on what type of trees and how much of a buffer there is

[WestGrayGuy]

I disagree. I think a large underground parking garage is ideal for this part of downtown. Surface parking = bad. Underground parking under a park = good.

Kudos to the City Council for their vision for this part of town. I mean come on, there is the GRB, Toyota Center, Hilton Americas, Houston Pavilions coming online in the near future.

Good job City Council

[MidtownCoog]

Well the entire idea of a park is to have green space.

Green space that connects to the Earth. Would it be too much to ask for rain from the park to make its way back into the water table vs. off into a storm drain?

This is like making a park in a planter or container.

Might as well put a freeway under Herman Park.

[WesternGulf]

Oh goodness. I see nothing wrong with this and I am usually critcal of this city but this was a smart move. What do we want for that area? Another garage? I also cannot wait for this park. The plans are exciting. Some of the preferred plans in here sound like an extension to that boring park west of this location near Houston Center which has not done a darn thig for the cbd. Time to try something different which I find Houston has been scared to do lately.

[mike1]

Well the entire idea of a park is to have green space.

Green space that connects to the Earth. Would it be too much to ask for rain from the park to make its way back into the water table vs. off into a storm drain?

This is like making a park in a planter or container.

Might as well put a freeway under Herman Park.

It's important to remember that we're talking about downtown here, and not virgin national park land. I mean, keeping the surface park connected to the water table may be ideal, but I don't think building subsurface parking is a bad alternative should parking become necessary. It certainly beats the popular Houston alternative of paving the whole thing under and putting up a strip center. Furthermore, subsurface parking, tunnels, and freeways are done all of the time in other major cities. How many subway tunnels would you bet run under Central Park in NYC, for example? My point is that underground parking in this location, or even a freeway tunnel under Herman Park, wouldn't exactly be the end of the world if those things were to become necessary. Besides, how much downtown runoff water would you really want in the water table anyway?

[Houstonian in Iraq]

I disagree. I think a large underground parking garage is ideal for this part of downtown. Surface parking = bad. Underground parking under a park = good.

Kudos to the City Council for their vision for this part of town. I mean come on, there is the GRB, Toyota Center, Hilton Americas, Houston Pavilions coming online in the near future.

Good job City Council

I'm with you West Grey

Fewer surface lots the better. Parking especially as that area gets more and more developed will be a

problem. Seeing that they will be tearing up that space for the construction of the park we might as well take care of potential parking problems now than later. Will the garage revenue go towards the building of the park and the up keep? If so yeah I

[MidtownCoog]

I have seen simultaneous events at Toyo, MMP and GRB on the same day and never had a hard time finding a parking spot.

All the while, somebody is making money on this little deal.

And I still think the approach to this park is flawed. Let it grow (feature wise) and develop organically over time.

Otherwise, it'll end up feeling like some fake lifestyle center you see in Sugar Land.

Who wants a park where everything was dedicated in 2006?

[mike1]

It's important to remember that we're talking about downtown here, and not virgin national park land. I mean, keeping the surface park connected to the water table may be ideal, but I don't think building subsurface parking is a bad alternative should parking become necessary. It certainly beats the popular Houston alternative of paving the whole thing under and putting up a strip center. Furthermore, subsurface parking, tunnels, and freeways are done all of the time in other major cities. How many subway tunnels would you bet run under Central Park in NYC, for example? My point is that underground parking in this location, or even a freeway tunnel under Herman Park, wouldn't exactly be the end of the world if those things were to become necessary. Besides, how much downtown runoff water would you really want in the water table anyway?

I don't know if replying to my own reply is against the rules, but I had another thought occur to me on this subject. It seems ironic that in posting after posting on this site, everyone complains about the lack of urban-style development and growth in the center city, but when something does happen everyone complains about the type of development that is taking place.. It seems that we can't have it both ways; either we leave lots of open green space and put up with the resulting sprawl or we go dense with urban walking environments by building vertical and digging underground to conserve space.

Houston is getting bigger by the day and it

[WesternGulf]

Otherwise, it'll end up feeling like some fake lifestyle center you see in Sugar Land.

Who wants a park where everything was dedicated in 2006?

I don't know about all that. Have we seen a project of this status anywhere else around town that we can autmatically have all these mental pictures in our head? We have seen what you are proposing in this city, and I wouldn't call it a succes by any stretch of the imagination. People have had several meetings thorughout the entire year to come up with this park and I have not seen another project where the citizens of the community were so involved, atleast that's what my mom says. I hate to bring another city into this but Millenium Park in Chicago is just what you described as everything dedicated in one year. As far as my eyes can see, the citizens of that town could care less. Well I cannot speak for them but that is what I saw when I visited. Do I even need to mention how much a success that park is? Maybe editor can speak for me on this.

Edited January 12, 2006 by WesternGulf

[mike1]

I have seen simultaneous events at Toyo, MMP and GRB on the same day and never had a hard time finding a parking spot.

All the while, somebody is making money on this little deal.

And I still think the approach to this park is flawed. Let it grow (feature wise) and develop organically over time.

Otherwise, it'll end up feeling like some fake lifestyle center you see in Sugar Land.

Who wants a park where everything was dedicated in 2006?

Yes. That's true for now, but if dense development does occur around the park (and that seems to be the consensus of what most people on this site want to have happen), then the parking situation will inevitably tighten up. It's infinitely better (and cheaper) to plan for the development we hope will happen by building the appropriate infrastructure up front. Otherwise, we'll just end up having to go back in 10-20 years later to destroy what will have become a local landmark in order to build in what should have been there in the first place. Furthermore, building the infrastructure up front will itself act as a catalyst to spur development that is currently lacking around the park. Developers are infinitely more likely to build around areas where people have adequate access than in areas that may be more ecologically sensitive but lack basic infrastructure. Isn't a lack of planning and foresight why people are always criticizing the city in the first place?

[MidtownCoog]

This is not going to be anything close to MP. It's basically just an extension of the existing park in front or GRB.

And only becuase some developers sold parking lots in the hopes of making their adjacent properties more valuable in the future.

I think the park is a nice idea, but I smell a boondoggle in the works here. I have provided my feedback to the developers of this park many times, and each time I tell them to keep it simple.

At least those comments made their Web site.

[WesternGulf]

Isn't a lack of planning and foresight why people are always criticizing the city in the first place?

Thank you.

It's just that in this city, people's excuse or defense is "I don't care what other people or cities think."

edit: and yes I know this park is no MP.

Edited January 12, 2006 by WesternGulf

[mike1]

Otherwise, it'll end up feeling like some fake lifestyle center you see in Sugar Land.

Not to be facetious, but would that be so bad? From an economic standpoint at least, the Sugar Land town center is a thriving commerical center with lots of potential for pedestrian traffic flow around it, while downtown struggles to maintain a Foleys and a CVS. Perhaps downtown has something to learn from the 'burbs.

Edited January 12, 2006 by mike1

[THE CHAD IS GREAT]

I agree, I think there are many things Downtown could learn from the burbs considering theres a big portion of Houston's population that live in the burbs. I also think the park is a good idea because any green space that can bring quality to life in an urban setting is a good thing. The garage I also think is a good idea because it took one ugly surface lot and turned it into a park, and took away no parking spots. I just think its neat a park over a parking garage. It dose sound almost like putting a freeway under a park. Could That Happen?

[WesternGulf]

I have had that mindset for too long. Downtown can learn from the burbs but just with smart growth. Downtown could pretty much learn from the Galleria area just with responsible city planning which Uptown lacks, but they do have the population and visitors that keep that area busy while downtown is a ghost town on a Saturday from morning till about 7 in the evening.

[mike1]

I agree, I think there are many things Downtown could learn from the burbs considering theres a big portion of Houston's population that live in the burbs. I also think the park is a good idea because any green space that can bring quality to life in an urban setting is a good thing. The garage I also think is a good idea because it took one ugly surface lot and turned it into a park, and took away no parking spots. I just think its neat a park over a parking garage. It dose sound almost like putting a freeway under a park. Could That Happen?

Instead of sticking their collective noses up at people who live outside of Beltway 8, the downtown types would be better off trying to learn what factors drive so many people to live, work, and shop out there in the first place. The market is going to ultimately drive the success or failure of any downtown redevelopment plan, and so it behooves those who promote downtown to learn what works elsewhere and to incorporate those ideas into their plans. You could build the Taj Mahal downtown, but if it doesn't take into account the needs of the people who will be using it, it will ultimately be a failure.

[skwatra]

You could build the Taj Mahal downtown

maybe we can build it on the superblock in midtown.

[mike1]

I have had that mindset for too long. Downtown can learn from the burbs but just with smart growth. Downtown could pretty much learn from the Galleria area just with responsible city planning which Uptown lacks, but they do have the population and visitors that keep that area busy while downtown is a ghost town on a Saturday from morning till about 7 in the evening.

Exactly. Take a look at what those areas have to offer and make it better. Downtown needs to find and exploit niche demands that cannot be met anywhere else. I see so much demand in this town for culture, and for a sense of sense of place and history, that downtown couldn't help but be successful if only it would meet the basic needs of the marketplace.

As you mention, keeping retail open during non-working hours would be a start--a basic rule of marketing is to be available when your customer is available, which means non-working hours and weekends.

I would also add cleaning up the place so that people feel safe and secure being down there. Downtown is one of the safest areas of town, but it is PERCEIVED as being dangerous because it is so dark after hours, because there are so many panhandlers, and because there seems to be so much graffiti and litter in certain areas. Perception IS reality, so make sure the place is open, clean, and adequately lighted so that people have a reason to be there AND feel safe. Downtown development couldn't help but happen under those conditions.

maybe we can build it on the superblock in midtown.

OOPS...didn't HISD already do that!

[WesternGulf]

You could build the Taj Mahal downtown, but if it doesn't take into account the needs of the people who will be using it, it will ultimately be a failure.

The understatement of the day.

[THE CHAD IS GREAT]

Point well made! Downtown dose need to be just Downtown, but it would not hurt to incorporate some things to let all people of Houston enjoy Downtown. I live in South Park, but my family all lives in Katy and Cypress and they do not enjoy Downtown as much as I do.

Edited January 12, 2006 by THE CHAD IS GREAT

[HeightsGuy]

I don't know if replying to my own reply is against the rules, but I had another thought occur to me on this subject. It seems ironic that in posting after posting on this site, everyone complains about the lack of urban-style development and growth in the center city, but when something does happen everyone complains about the type of development that is taking place.. It seems that we can't have it both ways; either we leave lots of open green space and put up with the resulting sprawl or we go dense with urban walking environments by building vertical and digging underground to conserve space.

Houston is getting bigger by the day and it

[travelguy_73]

I agree that the City is damned if they do, damned if the don't, and we are simply armchair quarterbacks who might not have all the details.

But my question is, who exactly is this underground parking for? The people who are (aren't?) going to drive downtown from outside downtown to go to Pavilions, GRB, Toyota, and the park itself? Perhaps in 20 years, it will be considered terrific foresight...

Empty every weekend:

GRB/Totota: have a garage

Pavilions: required to provide ample parking for their shops, right?

Park shops: have a garage

Plus all the parking on the other side of 59 that only gets used for Astros games.

During the week, I assume this will be a place for downtown workers and residents to relax, people who most likely already have their cars safely tucked away in existing spaces.

When I go running at Memorial Park, I curse the parking all the time. But I deal with it, and the situation seems to have (mostly) stood the test of time. If Memorial Park were being developed today, it would probably have a 6-story garage and complimentary golf cart shuttle.

Edited January 13, 2006 by travelguy_73

[mike1]

But my question is, who exactly is this underground parking for? The people who are (aren't?) going to drive downtown from outside downtown to go to Pavilions, GRB, Toyota, and the park itself? Perhaps in 20 years, it will be considered terrific foresight...

People who work downtown. Monthy parking rates can run $200 for good, covered spaces, especially if they are connected directly to Houston Center or the Park Shops via the tunnel system. Not a bad source of revenue for the city.

Edited January 13, 2006 by mike1

[RedScare]

I agree that the City is damned if they do, damned if the don't, and we are simply armchair quarterbacks who might not have all the details.

But my question is, who exactly is this underground parking for? The people who are (aren't?) going to drive downtown from outside downtown to go to Pavilions, GRB, Toyota, and the park itself? Perhaps in 20 years, it will be considered terrific foresight...

A quick read of the article reveals the garage replaces two surface lots that are indeed full when the GRB has events.

Additionally, if the park achieves its goal, and people actually use it and the restaurant and tavern and pavillion, wouldn't convenient parking actually be useful? If the hoped for development of residences around the park occurs, won't that take away even more of the current inventory of parking?

Wouldn't all of you critics be the same ones complaining about a lack of parking if they didn't do this?

[mike1]

The problem I've had with this thing from day one is the amount of money being spent to build a park 3 blocks wide and 3 blocks long that is to become Downtown's "Jewel" park as if forgeting that Elenor Tinsley park even exists. Does anyone have the current price tag available? You're right, it's all private money, but that private money could have been spent on upgrades to Elenor Tinsley park that would make it world-class.

Once again, not dissing the park itself, just the monetary excess being thrown at it that is desperately needed elswhere.

If they do decide to go ahead with this thing, I think the biggest waste would be to develop the park so as to exist isolated in the middle of a vast oasis of surface parking and undeveloped real estate without offering any reason for people to go over and visit. Either they need to develop the park so that it's incorporated into already existing downtown development, or they need to develop it so that it attracts new development into the surrounding areas on its own. At least underground parking would draw pedestrian traffic through the area in the near-term and would serve as a catalyst for long term growth in the surrounding blocks. This is my problem with relying on surface parking alone: in the absence of any existing or future draw for people to that area except on game day, the park is likely to become just another haven for the homeless. In that case, it would be a tremendous waste of money. Either the city goes all-out and develops the park properly so as to be a cornerstone of future downtown development, or else they should just forget about it entirely. If the park proves successful in spurring development, the money spent on it won't be waste; it will be an investment that pays tremendous dividends over the long run.

[WesternGulf]

A forumer at another board made a pretty good pont. He is a member here, but I don't know where he's at.

The park plan sounds great, but I have felt that if they do not adopt some blueprint for future aspiring developers to follow on how the area around the park is going to be used, it will not be used to its full potential. I hope they do not expect for this thing to only cater to the Hilton/ GRB/ Toyota Center/ Minute Maid Park crowd. Get real Houston. There needs to be some sort of retail/residential component to surround the park. We need Ed Wulfe or some other local urban developer to come in that knows how this city functions when land gets into the wrong developer's hands.