j_cuevas713

13 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

Mighty glad the city spent millions of tax dollars to upgrade the street for exactly this purpose!

Then what would you have done? There seems to be criticism for everything this city tries to do right. Things like this are a long term investment. If you were expecting a quick turn around, think again. Businesses aren't going to move in just because a street was redeveloped to be a retail district. You have to account for street presence and foot traffic. With downtown pumping out more places to live and with more hotel space bringing more visitors, you can expect to see more retail soon. You also have to account for how the city is perceived. Just because you want dry goods doesn't mean that particular retailer feels it's in their best interest until they know they can get a return on their investment. I'm glad they have a planned area for retail downtown. The city did this right, and with the infrastructure in place, we have a solid area for development. 

Just now, KinkaidAlum said:

God, for your sake, I hope you're trolling.

Me? lol

7 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

And that is the main problem right there. You want to change hearts and minds. I'm not a social justice warrior, I don't want to change cultures. My wish is only to provide cheap affordable public transportation to Houstonian's who 1) can't afford an automobile and 2) are physically handicapped and can not drive themselves. In Houston buses are the best option to meet those two goals to the most amount of people. If anything, our culture should be more open minded to buses. I don't need mass transportation to spur development or cure parkinsons, it just needs move people. I don't care what may or many not work in NYC or SFO, I only care about Houston, and in Houston buses have the greatest potential for the least amount of money. 

Neither am I but NY, SF, and Chicago all benefit from good bus service because rail is their backbone. If you rely solely on buses, you're stuck in gridlock just like anyone else. Rail CREATES shorter bus trips, which is what you want. Commuter bus is not efficient at all. You need rail to carry most of the weight while buses act as an extension of that system. That's how you get people moving. If Houston did not have rail, the bus system would suffer greatly and the cost to maintain such a system would suffer along with it. The ONLY way buses move people efficiently is when given the right of way. The system goes a follows. Great infrastructure starts with sidewalks and roads. Getting people on foot efficiently is the first mode of transportation in any city. Second is a solid bus system. The only issue with buses, is that as the city grows, the system needs to expand. You can't have 200 buses for 1 million people and then 200 buses for 4 million people. So the third thing is rail. Rail acts as the glue to the first two modes of transportation. All 3 together work great. Is rail cheap initially, no. Over time the system pays for itself and that's the trade off.

17 minutes ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

Trains and auto's are both technically old. However trains are older. That's just a fact.  Further, affordable mass produced automobiles required the technology of assembly lines which did not come into play until the early 20th century. What is your point?

 

 

I don't follow your argument. My position has not changed. Given the choice between public transportation and personal automobiles in Houston, Houstonian's will chose personal automobiles. Disruptions of people's ability to drive to businesses will impede those businesses ability to succeed. Light rail construction disruption is especially bad for businesses because it impedes motor traffic and sometimes foot traffic too and for what? Public transportation? Public transportation already existed.  You could tear up main street with a MagLev train and people would still prefer their automobiles. Businesses would still be affected by MagLev construction but at least there, you could legitimately make the argument that, that it was technological "progress".

 

 

 

That's your argument? Yeah because the culture has been set to rely on the automobile. How do you expect to change the culture of a city that has relied on the car for everything? Businesses are going to be disrupted regardless, but building a transportation system outweighs any short term affect it has on those businesses. You can argue all you want that the train itself didn't spur development but it's clear to see that it did. How much immediate development is an argument we could have forever. The truth is that many developers specifically stated that they built next to the train as an incentive to those wanting an urban lifestyle. It's CLEARLY a benefit to live adjacent to great public transportation. I don't need to go in to detail when you have proof in cities like Chicago and NY. And if you want to argue that in 13 years very little development has happened, then that's totally fine. It's going to take more than 13 years to fully redevelop most of the areas affected because of negligence from the city. The train isn't going to fix it all but it sure as hell is a great starting point. You can argue for people and their cars all day but I'm in an overly packed train in the morning and evening. People want options, plain and simple.  

1 hour ago, 102IAHexpress said:

 

I'm not sure it's progress actually. Businesses are not being affected by some awesome magnetic levitation train or a hyperloop system. Instead they are being affected not by progress but by actually regressing to a 19th century technology. That's the insult to injury. Rail existed on main street more than a hundred years ago. In time we progressed from rail on main street to buses. Now we're going back to light rail. I don't view that as progress, nor "progress" that local businesses should pay dearly for.

Hold on a sec! So you view rail as a lack of progress and view buses as progressive. So why weren't "progressive" buses creating more foot traffic and helping these businesses succeed? Why aren't those same roads that thousands of cars travel on daily helping serve these businesses that somehow took the total loss due to light rail? To me it sounds like those businesses we losing regardless, whether light rail was there or not. 

2 minutes ago, KinkaidAlum said:

I'm a business owner. One of our locations saw sales drop 43% year-over-year when one of the streets we are located on went under construction. Nobody paid us for that inconvenience.  Luckily, we were big enough to handle the hit. Some smaller places around us weren't so lucky. 

 

As for businesses that benefitted from the light rail; Brookfield Property, Hines, Urban Living, Perry Homes, Camden, Post, Farb, Womack, Mirador, Caydon, Morgan Group, Surge Homes, Ziegler Cooper, Hermes Architects, Parsons, Granite Construction, etc...

I'm sorry for your losses but has the rail help your business at all or no? My thing is, what is the city to do? How are we expected to progress considering losses are a part of that process? 

2 hours ago, 102IAHexpress said:

I have posted facts. You may not like the facts because it does not further your position but that fact remains that the light rail cost businesses at least $3,796,377 during a four year period. To say nothing of the lost tax revenue by the city and county.

 

If you would like to post facts that shows that the light rail has been beneficial to businesses then please go ahead. 

 

 

You're STILL going on about this while the rail carries tons of passengers daily. So..........?

Wow the Sakowitz finally gets good use!

On 5/14/2017 at 4:20 PM, UtterlyUrban said:

That has to be the worst computer graphics presentation that I have seen in a very long time.  The 1990s are back on your Pentium PC.   Literally the "car" drives through tree branches at 20' and otherwise spends the entire time driving down the wrong side of the street.  Really.  Quite.  Miserable.

 

 

It's just a rough animatic. What were you expecting Pixar?

Suck this never took off

Is it really hard to believe that investors would choose to build near public transportation? If you need any proof on how transit helps spur development, go to NYC or London. Those cities exploded with growth due to public transit. It's not a hard concept to grasp, so idk why critics continue to try their best to pull numbers out of their ass to prove a point that's been proven in cities across the world. 

16 hours ago, infinite_jim said:

I walk along Dallas St. everyday on my new work commute. Every sidewalk downtown should be this way, it's not nice it's just normal. 

I think you mean't to say every sidewalk in this city. 

$35!? Lol I'll wait for the park to officially open

That image above

On 4/27/2017 at 5:05 PM, CrockpotandGravel said:

Other renderings here and here and here.

This image of GreenStreet imo is really nice. Has a very urban feel.

What I'm starting to see is an incredible shift in the quality of life in this city. It's overall becoming more aesthetically appealing at every level in every neighborhood. Houston just needed some serious TLC. So what's awesome is all these neighborhoods are densifying and becoming more settled and unique. Each neighborhood is developing it's own character and expectation, and that's what was really missing in this city for a VERY long time. So these lights are added charm and individuality to this Post Midtown area. 

I'm not a fan of the front side parking. I with they could have incorporated parking underground and made the HEB fully open to pedestrians much how they're doing the Midtown Whole Foods. 

Ahh ok I figured it might be Lamar. That's awesome the city made a solid connection like this. Really like the direction Houston is going. 

What street is this?

These changes are awesome! I have to hand it to the city on this one. It makes me even more excited for the changes on West Alabama. 

1 minute ago, urbanize713 said:

With the residential that has developed along W. Dallas the 5 AC site is perfect for a residential tower. It would be a natural continuation and have park views. 

Good observation

WOW! Beautiful urbanism!

On 4/15/2017 at 2:44 AM, urbanize713 said:

 

This picture does NOT look like Houston! I love it! Now let's fill up those 2 parking lots near that parking garage lol

4 hours ago, trymahjong said:

I went to the presentation with perhaps 40 or so stakeholders. Nice presentation that indeed did show significant changes for the the Westheimer blocks from Montrose to Bagby. I had thought 4 lanes would be turned into 3 lanes but really it's only 2 lanes with an occasional left hand turn lane and "cut outs" for the metro buses to leave main lane when picking up riders. It seems that there are less bus stops and .... actual parking spaces on Westheimer itself.

Do you have any documents or images you can post?

15 hours ago, wxman said:

Can't wait for this sucker to rise! It should rise fairly rapidly being the foundation and garage are long complete.

This was really smart by Skanska to get a head start on this while they waited on a tenant.