Jump to content

mattyt36

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,289

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mattyt36

  1. mattyt36
    Federal funding regulations are relatively watertight--I doubt they'd let any land sales to be diverted away from the Housing Authority as a condition of receiving grants to begin with. So it's not like the funds could be used for, say, highway expansion. (Oh, the supreme irony for people who wanted to use highway funds to convert Lofts at the Ballpark to low-income housing!) I suppose they could just sit on the proceeds, but I am sure there are at least some performance requirements as well.
  2. mattyt36
    What?! You mean you're not just an evil capitalist trying to stick it to the people?! Your "plan" could even include additional public housing?! This idea that people in rental units, public or subsidized low-income rental housing, etc., have inherent rights that somehow are superior to rights extended to every other renter or property owner is absurd. No one who rented an apartment at the Lofts at the Ballpark seriously thought that that gave them a right to live there for the rest of their lives at some nominal annual increase in rent versus their original lease, come hell or high water, I'm not sure why people living in public housing should think the same--they already have the rent control and legal rights to reaccommodation, which is more than pretty much everyone else.
  3. mattyt36
    Wow, who would've ever guessed that a below market-rate housing project would be oversubscribed? I mean, totally logic-defying!
  4. mattyt36
    Ick (but thanks for sharing).
  5. mattyt36
    Hmmmmmm, well, wonder what gives them the luxury to make such a "principled" decision? The answer is eluding me, even though I think it should be rather obvious . . .
  6. mattyt36
    Regardless of whether it was "fortunate" or "unfortunate," the above is the simple reality. The current configuration is getting more "inefficient" from a land use perspective by the day. The proceeds could also be used to develop additional housing units elsewhere, as they have in plenty of other jurisdictions. Even if buildings are public landmarks, it doesn't mean they have to continue to be used for the same purpose. Below is a link from a Cite article from 1995 with a historical overview, including several proposals to sell the property going back to 1977. Evidently Kenneth Schnitzer wanted it in the early 1980s. https://offcite.rice.edu/2010/03/DepletedLegacy_Lang_Cite33.pdf (Didn't they recently sell part of the land already?)
  7. mattyt36
    The juxtaposition of this development next to public housing is . . . interesting. One wonders when that land will inevitably be sold.
  8. mattyt36
    Well it wouldn't really work considering UA has an exclusive long-term lease to Terminal B (assuming they exercise the redevelopment option). Not that HAS couldn't renegotiate (and the conceptual Terminal B program appears to have changed), but the current business deal doesn't really envision it.
  9. mattyt36
    Well $50 million from Oxy for Boy Scout badges won’t hurt.
  10. mattyt36
    The central terminal roadway complex is the main impediment to continued development and has shown exactly why especially over the last couple of years. Future terminal development would have to happen at a different site. Maybe this B redevelopment will address it. It’d actually make sense if the A redevelopment was coordinated with B for a new central west terminal, perhaps using that space west of the Marriott to eliminate the need of driving through B to get to A.
  11. mattyt36
    Much improved!
  12. mattyt36
    Has it always been a roundabout?
  13. mattyt36
    Well appropriate, considering he was Dutch so well aware of the dangers of flooding.
  14. mattyt36
    Obviously it is in an impressionistic style
  15. mattyt36
    Allusion to water being up to the ceiling the next time White Oak Bayou floods?
  16. mattyt36
    Well they took some license with that advertising, didn't they?
  17. mattyt36
    It's a bit more intricate than that if you look at pages 13-16 of the PDF (document pages 20-26): https://www.centralhouston.org/filer/0/1615334642/470/ The plan suggested pretty major roadway modifications in Downtown, Midtown, and EaDO, probably akin to the recent Bagby Street redux: Create a trail with a generous pedestrian path, an amenity zone, and a two-way bikeway. Paving, materials, and patterns should be high-quality and consistent to brand the trail. In fact, Pierce was one of the key streets identified. But thanks for posting this as it is just now clicking with me that the cap park isn't flush with the GRB (probably due to the interchanges), but rather it will be from the center of the GRB to 3 blocks north of MMP, which is much bigger than what I expected. Should make the lots north of MMP more valuable and a logical place for additional residential development.
  18. mattyt36
    From the article: "Baumgardner and SWA Houston are the designers behind Buffalo Bayou Park and GRB Plaza. They were tasked with figuring out options for Pierce Elevated." My question: Tasked by whom? As that makes a difference in how "serious" it is. Good to hear. (Doesn't seem like an ideal place for hill sprints 🤣)
  19. mattyt36
    As you said, it’s all in the use of the word “conversion”—you don’t tear down something you’re going to “convert.” Seems pretty clear they limited themselves from going back to the Downtown Living Initiative approach for new construction and are focusing now only on conversion. Perhaps a refreshed, less “rich” DLI could be launched at some point in the near future, as one would think it shouldn’t cost as much to entice additional development now that the area is much more “proven” for residential development. Concepts for the Sakowitz conversion will definitely be interesting to see. Hopefully we are about to start a third wave of residential construction after the 1990s Rice/loft conversion, then the DLI, now this. 🤞
  20. mattyt36
    Well one can only assume (hope?) the 901 Main St would be restored to the original exterior--look at those windows! Would make a unique place to live in. Just will need lots of noise insulation. Image courtesy of @Urbannizer from this thread:
  21. mattyt36
    I have admittedly not been there for a while, other than driving by--it seemed very lightly used. But maybe it is a roll of the die. Bagby Park has turned around thanks to La Calle--could you be thinking of that? Hopefully the LaCalle rebuild only takes two months as advertised.
  22. mattyt36
    The Houston Spaceport is unique--it's intended to be more of a development/industry hub than a major center for spaceflight operations, at least not in this phase. Indeed. It's certainly breathing new life into what was a long dormant employment driver for the area.
  23. mattyt36
    If people are so wedded to this Sky Park, wouldn't a compromise alternative be to just leave like 2-3 blocks up instead of the whole length of Pierce downtown? Maybe integrate this shorter section into the "Green Loop" somehow?
  24. mattyt36
    But the "they" is finite, and if "they" decide to start going to one of the shiny new parks, you risk the existing infrastructure becoming "forgotten." In general this is a frustration I have always had about Houston--very little coordinated development and they all compete against each other, I guess as a side effect of zoning. You get a development like Post in one place, then East River a couple miles away, then the Autry Park and Regent Square stuff a couple miles away in the opposite direction. We go from nothing to four or five similar developments in a relatively short period of time. Downtown residential spread over Market Square, around Minute Maid, and on the south end. It just seems it would've been more impactful if the development were centralized and radiated out. But I suppose I shouldn't complain. And I hope I'm wrong. Guess it's called the "Green Loop"--see https://www.centralhouston.org/filer/0/1615334642/470/, page 13 of the PDF. I haven't seen that it is anything other than a conceptual plan, but, then again, so is the Pierce Skypark.
  25. mattyt36
    I've said this many moons ago and it wasn't well received, but the one thing that concerns me is that we may be going overboard with parks here after years of not having much. It is going to cost a lot to maintain Disco Green, the new cap park, Trebly Park, Market Square Park, Lynn Wyatt Square, Buffalo Bayou Park, not to mention the proposed greenbelt and now the Pierce Elevated Park. If they're not all regularly teeming with people, I just fear they will become overrun with homeless or become neglected and turn into something more like Tranquility Park or Midtown Park. Not to mention, who in the heck wants to go walking around the Pierce Elevated for 6 months a year without any tree cover. (There's the same problem with the Post Skylawn.)
×
×
  • Create New...