Sparrow

On ‎4‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 0:17 AM, HoustonBoy said:

I would love for a sort of West Campus feel to the area around the rail stops next to UH. It would definitely spur a lot of development like retail, residential, hotel, etc. It'd also give UH a more college experience for its students which would make the school grow and be more attractive. Win win 

Scott could be UH's version of Guadalupe in Austin, but one major planning variation between the two universities is the location of the sports infrastructure. UT has sports fields located nearest the highway. UH has the sports fields furthest away from the freeway. This is a distinction that can be overcome, but one that will be necessary to not ignore, and must take a dedicated effort by the University to overcome. 

Guadalupe is a vibrant, active scene from early in the morning until late at night because it has many differing uses of the surrounding land--housing, classrooms, retail, restaurants, bike route, transit corridor, and so on. These many uses result in many people using the street at all times of day. Scott has barrier forming transit, pad lot fast food, single family houses, empty lots, sports fields, and parking lots.   

The potential for the Third Ward to become a student enclave for TSU and UH is there, but creating that urban feel to the corridor on Scott and the West Campus feel for the neighborhood beyond will take smart steps. It's great to have many food options as Scott does have, but if maximum lot lines were in place (as opposed to minimum) the streetscape would begin to form creating an environment more conducive for pedestrian movements. UH must do something about all of those parking lots fronting Scott--if you want the urban feel they all need to become mixed-use garages with both residential and commercial use to add all day, every day foot traffic to the corridor. Connections need to be made with the street--a linear pedestrian path connecting Alabama and the heart of the University could have been great in connecting to the neighborhood--now the indoor practice facility is blocking that physical and visual connection. UH missed a huge opportunity to improve Scott when the decision was made to rebuild TDECU on the same spot at Robertson--building at Cullen/Elgin/45 would have opened up the SW corner of campus for educational development. I'm not sure how to create a pedestrian environment with the rail line along Scott's eastern side from Wheeler to Holman--that's pretty devastating.

It's great to wish Scott was more urban and vibrant, it's a whole different thing trying to get the transition to happen with the barriers the University's planning has put in place. It could be done--but it will not be easy.

19 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Have you ever driven on the West Loop?  It doesn't take a traffic engineer to know that rerouting I-69/US59 over the West Loop is not a solution.

Okay, agreed, forget re-signing I-69 for the short term, but I-45 and I-10 could be done with the North Loop and East Loop with very little effort. Take the money intended for the Big EaDo project and instead of giving the West Loop one (~2) express lane each direction as planned, build 4+ express lanes each direction as an elevated viaduct.

Added capacity is needed for the West Loop regardless--the current plan for that will help for about two weeks. More funding on the West side (with the end game intent of re-signing for I-69 thru traffic) will help both Downtown and Uptown without the need to acquire large amounts of land and with what could likely be a faster, less disruptive construction period. Little change would be needed for the current infrastructure--simply leave it as is. Build two segmented elevated viaducts just like US 183 in north Austin.

Gonna go a bit off into left field here, but how effective would it be to just re-sign I-10, I-45, and I-69 to portions of I-610 around the city's central core and designate the portions of those freeways inside of 610 as spurs (i.e. I-345, I-569, and I-910)? The thinking is that thru traffic is more likely to simply stay on course than to jump from one highway to another and back again.

Re-signing I-45 to the North and East Loops would add about 3 miles. Re-signing I-69 to the West and North Loops would add just 1 mile. Re-signing I-10 to the North Loop adds about 2 miles to the trip. Not really all that significant extensions to thru traffic trips.

If simply re-signing the routes could take just 5 or 10% of the thru traffic from the central core, would this expensive project even be necessary? Perhaps spending those funds on West Loop thru lanes and North Loop expansion would be more cost effective and less economically disruptive than in Downtown.

Surely TxDOT would have already modeled such though, right?

21 minutes ago, samagon said:

 

indeed, but when the closest crosswalk adds 100 yards extra walking and 2 extra times crossing a street, laziness prevails, and there are safety issues associated with crossing streets as well. 

 

One thing UH excels at is not lighting the crosswalks, or notifying drivers when there are pedestrians in the crosswalks. Not a pedestrian friendly environment at all.

I thought at one point in the Campus Master Plan, or some other long range guide, UH intended to petition to close Cullen to thru traffic and create a pedestrian mall. If that is on the agenda in the near term, it would be quite positive in creating a more friendly walking and biking environment. Parking garages have been built at the periphery of campus--check. Light-rail/Scott Street construction complete--check. What's standing in the way of transitioning Cullen?

8 hours ago, samagon said:

 

they are doing some work on the southeast side of campus as well, along calhoun road. there's fence up to the curb. you'd have thought they'd at least put the fence 3 or 4 feet off the curb so people can walk safely. as it is, if they don't cross the street to walk on that sidewalk, they have to walk in the street.

Perhaps crossing the street to walk on that sidewalk is exactly what they intend for pedestrians to do for their safety...

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 4:14 PM, Houston19514 said:

 

They've already unloaded a bunch of their real estate (more than 40% of their owned locations and an even higher percentage of their valuable owned locations); that's part of why even they have finally been forced to admit they have little to no future.  And they don't have many unencumbered assets left to sell off or borrow against.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/how-sears-ceo-lampert-cashes-in-as-stores-cash-out.html

An interesting read for anyone who cares to know a bit more of the financial dealings of Sears.

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Why would they need to separate the jurors any more than they currently do?

What's all this talk of separating anyhow? I thought the jury building for the county was more of an organizational convenience than a need to isolate the populace from the law.

I served for nearly 2 months on a trial at the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse a few years back, and on many occasions walked in thru the metal detectors right behind or in front of the guys that were on trial or lawyers from either side. We jurors exercised good practice (as did they) and didn't ride in the same elevator up with them--we would just wait for the next one.  

I envision a retail power center going in here with maybe an apartment building or two and about a dozen pad sites. Perhaps an office building or two if we get really lucky.  Maybe they could keep the mall structure for the big box retail stores for cheaper than tearing down and rebuilding?

I'd like to hope for something more "urban", but I'm not going to set my expectations too high for this one just yet.

With all of the advancements made by the car companies with regards to driverless car technology, has TxDOT begun considering such technological advances when analyzing future needs? Many hypothesize widespread adoption within a decade. This project may at best be coming online when the major shift will be occurring.   

Following distances will likely shrink when humans no longer drive vehicles--will additional lanes really be needed on new highways or are we spending our funds unnecessarily? 

5 hours ago, cspwal said:

I read somewhere that Southwest was a major part of the opposition to the original Texas Triangle line in the 90s.  That at least makes sense - but why would Buc-ee's object to this?  There's only one between here and Dallas, and 2 between here and College station.  Do those 3 stores generate such a lion share of revenue that they would block a train line?  I'd imagine they would still get a lot of business at those three stores even if the HSR is super successful - family trips, truckers, and moving in/out of college would all still be trafficking 290 and 45, and a bunch of people would still drive themselves instead of take the train.

 

Of course, maybe Texas Central should approach Buc-ee's and to make a deal - the midpoint station can be branded as a Buc-ee's and only incidentally be a train station.

By the time this train finally gets running we'll have self-driving cars thanks to Elon Musk's Tesla, trains that travel 700+ mph thanks to Elon Musk's hyperloop, congestion alleviation thanks to Elon Musk's The Boring Company, and frankly Houstonians could travel to Mars on one of Elon Musk's Space X rockets rather than go to Dallas anyhow--Mr. Musk is who Buc-ee's should really be scared of.

How about creating a marina district? I don't own a yacht, but if I did, it sure would be great to have it parked out back while still living in the heart of the city. 

Can we get a adjustment to the name of this thread? "I-59" is inaccurate. Just saying.

Demoing this block is something too get excited about if you ask me. Prepares the land for something Going Up! next cycle. They could decide just to leave the existing building vacant. I actually prefer an empty parking lot for this block for now. We'll get a better project next time around than we would if they began something now.   

Okay then, if not a park or a garden, how about getting handful of cows to munch on that green grass and seeing a lower tax bill on their "agricultural land"? Are there regulations in Downtown against livestock?

It could be a tourist attraction for the out-of-towners who miss the Rodeo.

You know, if this is going to sit for a while, I wonder if the downtown district couldnt convince chevron to use it as a short term park. As soon as the new residential buildings start coming on line, it would be cheap and easy to throw up some temporary volleyball nets, fencing for a dog park etc. I suppose its usefulness would depend somewhat on what (if anything) actually gets purchased for use as a permanent south downtown park

I wonder if Chevron can convince the City to "lease" the grass lawn for a symbolic $1/year to allow the city to use the land as a temporary park. One would think Chevron would reap the benefits of either reduced property tax exposure or perhaps an in-kind donation allowing use of the land would provide a tax break.

Perhaps someone more versed in corporate tax law would be able to lay out any tax advantages of a temporary Chevron Green Park. The benefit to the city--more succinctly the people of the city--is rather straightforward.

 

Untitled by Chris Rojas, on Flickr

 

I'm having a really hard time understanding why they would put balconies two feet up from street level. There's a certain security factor that is hard to get over with an inner city street level patio. Why not just increase the interior square footage of the first floor units?

Never mind the actual landowners who are impacted - they can't wait for the annual paychecks for the use of their land that go far beyond whatever productive use they'd get out of it. It's their neighbors who always have the strong opinions on the subject.

It's that neighbor thing that has Brady all in a twist if I remember correctly. The folks up in The Woodlands wanted the line to go straight up 45 so they could benefit. Since the line is going west of Montgomery County they disapprove of the thing entirely. The thing is, the new Grimes County station area will become the new "it" bedroom community. 

As long as it's called Houston A&M. The acronym would be gold.

 

A pork related mascot is a must!

Someone please give Mr. Young a tour of the KBR site.

Look, I'm in the camp that doesn't want to slow UH's forward momentum, but let's not look a gift horse in the mouth here folks--​TWO ​new universities?? Bring on UT Houston and A&M Houston.  

Does anyone know where I can find the toll amounts for traveling on say Segment D to the end of F2? Surely something that is set to open within a week would have posted toll amounts somewhere online, but I haven't found any yet.

http://communityimpact.com/houston/cy-fair/news/2015/10/14/three-grand-parkway-segments-near-completion-cyf/

You couldn't be more right--information on toll rates seem rather hard to come by. This four month old article has an image--that's about the best I found.

Six levels of retail?  There's absolutely no way that makes sense in this location.  Where do they see the demand for that much retail inside the Astrodome?  These guys are smoking their own dope, as the expression goes.

I disagree. Creating a mall, with a several acre indoor recreational park, including underground parking, inside a historical landmark, built in a densifying, high tourist area next to a mass transit line seems like a fantastic idea to me. 

Perhaps this will be the impetus to de-parking lot the NRG complex and create parking garages and hotels. No one wants to stay in a hotel surrounded by a sea of parking lots, but provide a CityWalk type of shopping experience and suddenly you have a tourist magnet on your hands.

Q: So what becomes of this in say, 15-20 years or so, when we all take a self-driving Uber everywhere, and no one has a need to own a personal vehicle any longer? Can a garage such as this be converted to anything, or will it inevitably have a date with the wrecking ball? Are we in the midst of the peak of parking garage glory days?

SubdivisionPlatPDF_Wilson Headquarters GP - 52616 - 151207.pdf

San Jacinto extension still part of COH future plans. 

As I look at this I can't help but think how very poorly the building placement in the middle of the lot results in wasted space--look at all of that driveway encircling the entire building. Just eyeballing it without actually doing up a schematic, better building placement should result in additional parking spaces by reducing the wasted driveway acreage. I'm sure it's just the visual perception I'm getting, no doubt they did their due diligence, but it just seems like a poor choice. Building setbacks no doubt play a part, but that's what they're seeking a variance for anyhow I believe.

Based on their previous work, they said a tunnel wasn't feasible. They would have to build a bridge with a steep grade.

Perhaps the tunnel would be feasible now? The public meeting was back in 2010; not sure when studies were conducted. Conditions have changed, instead of multiple tracks to cross, there's just one now. The only reason I could think to build a bridge rather than a tunnel just as was done at Main so many decades ago, would be because of the prohibited cost of any ground pollution, much the same situation as with the Green line. Engineering cost constraints likely aren't the issue here with just one track above. A tunnel would also have more favorable height characteristics for TxDOT's 45 reconstruction plans.

One would think that the Hardy Yards folks would dedicate the ROW to the city--especially if they could keep much of their future planned park above such a tunnel. With a bridge structure no such park would have an opportunity to exist in that space.

Even south of the track you might expect the Wilson property folks (I believe the alignment would cross property within their plat) to dedicate their part of the needed ROW without cost by simply exchanging the needed land for a closure of Chapman (north of Conti). Realigning Lyons with Naylor may even be beneficial to both the property owners and the city at the same time--depending upon TxDOT's I-45 plans of course. A San Jac extension by itself should increase the Wilson property's value--seems like a good reason to dedicate the needed ROW, especially if the Chapman closure was thrown in.