WesternGulf

ahhhh

If it's truly from the 80's, it's funny how accurate the proposals for the arena and Finger's apartment building are....and I agree with Howard with the illuminated red station design.

Just a reactionary passive way for him to revive a topic out of his curiosity.

You're right; that is another term for cities developed in a certain era, but those cities also have timeless qualities that are effective in restoring or preserving a city's urban fabric. Is it silly for Houston to adapt such qualities in an agenda to make Downtown Houston more active and more of a self-sufficient neighborhood and not a desert for so many everyday amenities in an urban context? I'm not saying Downtown Houston is not safe, I am simply saying having more eyes on the street with having mixed activity happening downtown is more safe than being a sole pedestrian walking in a "dead zone" of non-activity. That's the case for a highrise district or a commercial street lined with single story storefronts. Whose statement in this thread are you referring to that highrises are unsafe?

I do not think GFR is appropriate everywhere but it should be advocated for most buildings downtown. Traditional built cities commercial avenues or main corridors usually meet downtown. One would not advocate for every high density project in Houston to have "GFR" but it is imperative for commercial corridors and centers of activity in certain neighborhoods so there are no dead zones and transit can serve these routes of mixed activity. What makes a downtown a downtown is the concentration of businesses on almost every street and not on a few corridors like you may find in a more residential neighborhood. There are tens of thousands of workers that work on Louisiana and Smith Streets downtown but the activity of the street would not tell you that because of the single use office towers on those corridors. Almost every one of those landmark towers have some type of private plaza on the ground level that makes the whole street have an office park effect. If you do not work at these places there is no reason to be on those "private" streets. If that trend is carbon copied all over downtown, we will continue to have the dead zones that intermingle with other dead zones. Doesn't make for the safest downtown after hours anyway.

Trust me. I'm fully aware of theNiche's devil's advocate postings. I don't have any justification for entertaining them this time though.

What I initially described is not representative of a whole metropolitan area. There are cities that struggle with the evolution I described in their very own cores. What I was trying to get across in my last post is the metropolitan area growth is irrelevant when dealing with how do municipalities manage sustainable growth within certain areas in a city and implementing and encouraging infrastructure that will support a density of a neighborhood. Density, the topic of this thread, is rarely a regional or metropolitan problem in the U.S. Sometimes it is not even a municipality wide problem. So yes my sentiments are being applied to selective neighborhoods within a city.

Well from that list, Chicago, D.C., NYC, and to a lesser extent Seattle comes to mind. By the way, my statements were based on the growth of certain areas within a city. Chicago lost over 200,000 people in the last decade, but that does not mean neighborhoods with high density such as The Loop and neighborhoods adjacent to it, did not experience growth to implement such elements. Chicago's example is carbon copied in many cities that have the characteristics that were mentioned in my last post.

Well if I were talking about Houston, I would be speaking hypothetically. My comment was based more on traditional built cities that have an indisputable established nucleus of activity. Driving to work eventhough you live within close proximity is not as universal in cities as you think. Trying to analyze how Houston operates may bust a head vessel.

These days there are forces that create density rather than the necessity for it that existed in pre war times. Zoned and regulated land use that creates higher land value forces developers to make the most use of their footprint. That usually means incorporating and mixing recreation, housing, work or any other activity that subsidizes the expense of their available land. If this concept is repetitive in a certain area, density will follow and so will congestion and more drivers. In a perfect world, in an urban planning sense, more vehicular congestion will increase the demand for alternative transportation which surfaces more pedestrians in an environment and hopefully more sustainable modes of transport become more efficient and practical.

Very unfortunate to hear this about who I thought was a much needed voice on this forum. One of the few dudes on here I would wake up in the morning to follow his post when I could not pry myself away from this forum. I appreciated blunt passionate inputs like nmainguy's. News definitely changed my mood this evening and I personally didn't even know the guy. I noticed what he said his illness was without any discretion and admired how he still maintained a spirit that seeked out progress in our society. Again, I admire people that can hold on to that optimism despite being ill. Best Wishes to his family.

Damn! My only hope is something else takes up the rest of the lot that blocks most of this structure.

Is the remaining parcel of land owned by the hotel for possible parking? If so the utilization of this land was pretty stupid and a bad move fiscally speaking.

^^LOL! Both!

i can say ditto almost 100%, except that i am not married or from the east coast.