HoustonIsHome

Realistically it can be done, however it is quite uncomfortable as no one wants to sit/stand on top of each other.

I have experienced it on the Bissonett, Bellaire, and Richmond buses before they built the rail

It was indeed uncomfortable, especially when the ac in the bus would mess up.

I can't say how many people was actually on the bus, but I have seen at least 20 people standing. It used to get so bad where there would be 7 or 8 people standing in the raised portion at the back. If the buses have 38 seats I can easily see the 60 people figure.

I remember the bissonnett buses in the afternoon rush hours were the double buses and there were times when people would be standing from the front all the way to the back.

I don't know if they still get that packed, but after the rail went in the congestion eased greatly. I guess it was because the buses routes were shortened so they could make more frequent trips

You're right. Should be getting some info soon if this article is to be believed....

http://impactnews.com/houston-metro/the-woodlands/construction-on-houston-to-dallas-high-speed-rail-could-star/

That train looks sleek.

I know they were considering 290 and 45, but didn't know they were considering 59.

I guess both the Hardy site and the post office site would work for a station, but Hardy is right on the local rail system, while the Post Office site is actually downtown.

The intermodal station designs were beautiful. It would be awesome if we get something like that at either location, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Everthing seems to get watered down. Think about all the fancy ideas they had for the central station downtown, then decided they can't build it.

If it's "their taxpayer dollars", why is money going away if it's not being used for rail? Why can't it be used to upgrade the aging bus fleet, or make improvements to city roads?

Not sure if that's true but the rail to me seems more efficient than the buses.

As for the roads, if the rails do their job and take wheels off the road then I guess the roads would last longer.

I wonder how many square miles of road we have. It must be really taxing to maintain all these miles of streets. I don't think there are many cities that have multiple streets approaching 20 miles long. We probably have dozens of them.

We do need to keep both car passengers and public transit customers satisfied, but there will be a time when the share miles of street that need upgrading while become unbearable.

I never understood why people are so against spending"their taxpayer dollars" on a train that they don't have any intention of riding.

But these people don't ride the bus either, so they are just fine with "their taxpayer dollars" supporting a bus system they don't ride? Why does it matter if there's a rail component?

Federal funds used to construct capital projects will be used on other cities if Houston rejects the funds. You're paying the same either way.

I think the difference is they have grown used to subsidizing the buses. The rail is new so it is a more recent assault on the pockets.

also, the street bound rail generated some bad press when it first started up because of all the people running into it. Some saw it as a nuisance because of the confusion.

I think people will warm up to it as the years go by

Amazing picture!

I agree, I really like the colors.

Houston is developing lots of awesome vantage spots that would probably make great spots to photograph the city from

LOL Is your head hurting again from all the thinking? ;-)

I am not going to waste time on this back and forth. Your internet research just to say gotcha came up short cause clearly I am talking about the Riverwalk diversion. Now if you have some link showing people getting washed away downtown I would gladly admit you got me.

But you dont have to fact check everyone. It derails the topic when we are talking about developing downtowns and you jump in with 'corrections that don't even fit in'

Shall we get back to discussions about relocating the HPD headquarters? I do not wish to continue discussing san Antonios suburban floods

What? Internetpolice?

First - San Antonio started the River Walk in the 1910s/teens. So imagine San Antonio if they hadn't actually planned this back in and around World War One? Their downtown would probably be a shell of itself. Possibly the city would be more along the lines of an El Paso in size now (minus CJ across the river).

Second - The San Antonio River is hardly clear. Buffalo Bayou is a healthy color. Muddy water doesn't equal poluted, the same that clear water doesn't mean the source is free from chemicals/pollution/disease.

Third - look at the Buffalo Bayou masterplan and you'll see there are plans (as visionary as they may be) to eventually incorporate some sort of "river walk" promenade in and around the bayou near Downtown. We won't have restaurants and cafes on the water (not as close at least as San Antonio) but at least they will be along the bayou... should that plan ever reach full implementation.

Sixth - San Antonio in 1940 had 253,000 peopel while Houston had 384,000

(Just thought that people might want to know?)

Joining the police crew?

1. Sorry but the flood that led to building the Olmos damn, which led to the creation of the River Walk, happened a full ten years after the date you gave

http://drtlibrary.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/san-antonio-flood-of-1921/

The work on the dam didn't start till years later and the plans fur the Riverwalk were not finalized until about 1930. The riverwalk as we know it didn't start to take shape until a decade later

2. I don't remember anyone talking about clear, dirty or polluted. That's a sidetrack.

3. Exactly!!!! We have ideas, San Antonio has action. Allison wasn't downtowns only flood. San Antonio had enough 80 years ago, why is it that after more than a decade we have hardly done anything to mitigate flood damage.

4 and 5. Where did these two go?

6. Thanks, that info shows what im saying. Smaller city, but they got that thing done

they were probably thinking "how do we maximize our profits?"

crazy idea.

So the other developers building all around this development doesn't know about this magic maximize profits idea? Are they the only one that knows about?

They gonna be mad at you now, you let the zillions of other developments around this know the secret.

San Antonio had all of their flooding problems solved ages ago? That might come as news to a lot of San Antonio residents:

Three people swept away, killed in severe San Antonio flooding (May 26, 2013)

Flash flooding, high water rescue in San Antonio (July 11, 2012)

Several dozen San Antonio streets were flooded, prompting officials to post barricades to prevent motorists from driving into flood water (March 20, 2012)

San Antonio has already been dealing with torrential downpours and resultant flash flooding. A high water rescue occurred in San Antonio shortly before 10:30 p.m. CDT on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012, while some roads were closed due to flooding (Sept, 2012).

Come on internet police. NONE of this freaking incidents are downtown. I wouldn't be that big an idiot to assume that they would alter all 2 million miles of waterways in Houston so why would you expect them to alter all 2 million in san Antonio. We are talking about the river walk area in san Antonio and the bayou area of downtown Houston. We are talking about developing the bayou water front in Downtown so it should be Crystal clear we are talking about a specific area

You do not have to contradict everything everyone says dude.

San Antonio started on they're downtown flood mitigation plan in the 1940s. By then Houston was way bigger

My thing is this:

Houston is no stranger to flooding

It has been bigger than San Antonio for a while now

It was the capital of the republic

Why on earth did SA get their act together on flooding ages ago and we are still "looking into" ours?

Its seems for us we were all business, while SA integrates more aesthetic and recreational uses to their surroundings.

Just about everytime I ride the rail I encounter people riding the rail fir the first time and from their comments it seems that they all think its neat.

So the question really isnt if they love it or not. They do. For many of these first time riders the rail is just a novelty like an amusement park ride. Yes they liked partaking in a ride every nite and then; they don't mind paying the $1.25 to get on, but they sure don't want to fund the darn thing.

I don't think people are against rail. Many just don't want to pay for it

Actually as I said I don't want the Post Office site privately developed; I'd like to see it owned by the city.

Any reason why?

I dunno, seems the city spends money but things still come out cheap looking.

I just think the location is a major asset and if something is put up it should engage the area. Scary thing would be the city throwing up a cheap looking building with a massive surface lot and the area remains pretty much the same looking

I walked this area today. I took some pics but it says they are too big to upload.

I really like the area. It seemed nicely treed, the area is quiet but close to a lot. It didn't seem as dead as I remembered. I can't wait to see what the addition of residents do.

Double post

You've got to be joking. My comment was that SF has a natural advantage in tourism because it has a very unique setting that most people find extremely beautiful. Saying that's not a factor is about the same as denying that Miami draws a lot of its tourism from its natural surroundings (oh wait, you said that too).

I didn't say it was the only factor, I said it was an advantage. By the way, I hear that Hawaii's tourist numbers are good because of "what they have done", not the stupid beaches and volcanos.

I'm not saying that surroundings don't help. What in saying is that you guys are acting like without it tourism can't blossom and I have examples of how some of the top spots for tourism are not in picturesque spots.

What does your logical fallacy have to do with my point? Because you named two tourist spots that were in nice settings, my four examples of other destinations not in nice spots are suddenly invalidated.

Please. The top travel destinations in the world are set on flat as a pancake nondescript land.

These destinations were created. If memory serves me right Paris is tops in the world and that city was planned the hell out of.

I see, so you were considering turning a current jail facility into UHD housing. They'd also have to move the headquarters of the county sheriff and a TDCJ state jail for men.

Yeah, apart from the stigma, I would think it would be an easy conversion to dorms considering the spacing of plumbing and stuff.

Also I know UHD is set as a commuter school, but do you think UHD should lease from an existing building and establish dormitory facilities in it for a few students who may live far away (Someone in resident Hockley or Galveston)?

That's what I was hinting at before the discussion sidetracked. My question was would the stigma of it previously being a jail prevent students from wanting to stay there

The school did not own the land before the county. The only dorm was as mentioned previously at the base of the Main Street Bridge. One of the jail buildings was indeed a cold storage place, and the announcement that it would become a jail mightily peeved the student body at UHD (I was going there at the time)

Oh ok. I guess the historian was mistaken then

No one is upset. Just trying to figure things out. Baker Street was purpose built. Could have been other buildings there used as dorms, but I don't know? South Texas JuCo was only 2,100 students?

Either way, the jails are there now. Unfortunately!

What does purposely built have to do with anything? All buildings were purposely built, but that doesn't mean something wasn't there before.

Whats so difficult about accepting that a school may have owned the land before the county? Again if the historian is mistaken about the location of the dorms I don't know, but she seemed pretty certain that the school owned that lot

Uh...

I think the existing jail buildings were purpose built that way. Pretty sure.

Any one else want to chime in?

I don't know which building you think was formerly a dormitory. The 1200 Baker Street Jail was new construction, built to be a county jail. The San Jacinto annex was formerly a cold storage warehouse, converted by the county to be a jail. The 1307 Baker Street Jail was built as and has always been a jail. The Franklin Street jail was built by the county as a jail (it is no longer used as a jail).

As far as I know, the only dormitory UH/D ever had was the former hotel at Main and Commerce (where the Commerce building now stands). UH/D demolished that building and in the early 90s.

Calm down. I didn't say the jail wasn't built. I said I dunno if the stigma of the jail would allow sorms to be there. That is where I was Told the previous dorms were.

If you read my post I said the school couldn't afford a reno so went for new construction. I never said what the New owners of the site did with the building.

The historian may have mixed up buildings but sheesh don't get so twisted. He said the old Dorms used to be a hotel. Uhd owns lots of plots in the area. THEY also own that little pump on Willow street near the jail

lots of very important people in this town simply don't get it; they don't realize that the banks of Buffalo Bayou facing downtown Houston have a higher and better use than a police headquarters.

I like how in Paris and London how major tourist attractions are along the water: the gardens in paris, the louvre, tower of London, Westminster Palace, Hampton Court Palace, London Eye, Tower Bridge, Big Ben, Shakespeare Theater, Tate Galleries, Lambeth palace, Victoria gardens..... with other landmarks such as Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, Kensington Palace,etc just blocks away

I think the county jail building used to be dorms for the junior college that is now UHD. I dunno if the stigma of the jail would ever allow a reversion to that use.

How I heard it was that the building was in disrepair and it would cost the school more to renovate it than build new so they sold it. They haven't built dorms since then but they did expand by building the Academic, Commerce and Shea buildings. There has been talk of a 6 building for over ten years. The building was supposed to be a science wing on that lot between Milam and the Post Office site.

20140427_105918 by Not.Larry.Dierker, on Flickr

Nice shot

"Alliance Residential Co. is planning to develop a five-story, 207-unit apartment complex south of downtown for the block bounded by Bell, Leeland, Main and Fannin. EDI International is the architectural firm."

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Houston-s-apartment-boom-focuses-on-urban-scene-4619878.php?t=445cfc44ffb05374ef

rawImage.jpg

centerpiecewide.jpg

Its funny when they put out renderings of a tower they often show different angles including other buildings so you get an idea of how the building is going to fit in. With these type of apartments they often just show the apartment glaring in the middle of nowhere. Comeon throw in Skyhouse, Houston House, Savoy and the Exxon building in that rendering

This one was recently announced abs I already forgot about it.

Don't think it will be anything memorable about it especially being sandwiched between a 10 storey building and a 21 storey building.

I guess alliance is going up first and will have more visibility being right on the train line. I guess I will use Alliance as a measure to see how well I can stomach this type of residential in the middle of towers downtown.

This development will be next to blocks with buildings that are 100 feet tall or more on the northeast, the east, the south east, the south and the southwest. So five of the adjacent 8 blocks will have decent heights, Two of the remaining three are ripe for development (one is empty, the other has a uhaul and parking), the third is owned by the co cathedral.

At least the 7 storey fingers development is good looking, its massive and has many other short structures near. Thus one and Alliance just makes me want to ask "what were they thinking"