mattyt36

How would that even work legally? It'd be quite the encroachment.

I look at those photos and I think Houston House is iconic in its own way. What a survivor! Built in 1966 and has never changed its name, even when you think there would’ve been a need to from a marketing perspective with all the new construction. Are there any other downtown properties besides the Beaconsfield and the Plaza and Peacock that have been residential for over half a century? Incidentally I just looked up the Plaza and Peacock and they were built in 1923, so this is their centennial. Beaconsfield of course are not only pre-WWI but also months older than Titanic sinking. I’m sure I’m missing some.

True

The Icon has one, no?

So the restaurant is being closed and replaced with a lounge of the same name or is this the old Subway space and the second-floor terrace above the existing restaurant?

AMEN Well, if I had to guess, the building was just sold. Seems like they’re waiting on the new legislation to pass Council (which seems in the pretty early stages), then they have to design it, then get the financing. I’d be shocked if anything visible happened within six months, but what do I know?

Yikes

Downtown Houston hotel occupancy is a little more than 50%. There are a couple active hotel developments as it is. RevPAR isn’t anything to write home about. Not sure where the frustration comes from. The project is not proceeding now for very obvious reasons. You don’t issue a monthly press release that says “Now is not the time, but we’ll keep you posted.”

TxDOT’s contribution to the park by funding the structural cap is nothing to sneeze at. Anyone who thinks that TxDOT should fund the actual park itself, and that the absence of funding is somehow an indicator that it won’t be built, just has zero idea how these things work. I wouldn’t be surprised if TxDOT can’t even fund such things legally as part of its enabling legislation. Even if it could, I can understand from a policy perspective why they wouldn’t want to get into that business. The federal monies going to this project are restricted, too. I think the Infrastructure Bill may provide some more flexible funding options.

Accurate

Downtown Dallas does seem to me less sterile and more organically “lived in,” with no retail in the tunnels. The different street grids and street widths also give it more character. The level of investment in downtown Houston versus downtown Dallas is just so visible, though, with Uptown getting almost all the new development. I think I would definitely rather attend a convention in Houston versus Dallas, however, that convention center is just in an absolutely awful location. Disco Green really is a visual jewel. This development will make it even more so.

Augie, I sure hope the left isn’t a self-portrait, I did picture you rather Bushy, but not in that way

As I am (happily) not an engineer, can someone explain cantilever roads? Is this a design like the LBJ Freeway in Dallas between the Stemmons and Central Exwy?

Ed, buddy, c'mon. That's your MO, right there, as described. You may not "attack" (Ouch! Words hurt!), but I have yet to see you seriously consider an alternative point of view in any post, ever. This thread is but the most current example. Otherwise, I'm glad to know you fancy yourself such an advanced student of human nature. 🙄 The irony is, shall we say, palpable.

Why don't you be a doll and summarize it for us, Ed? You started this thread with an article employing spurious logic--doesn't seem you have been listening very closely either. "Bulldozed into oblivion"? "Tired of being marginalized and ignored"? I didn't have you down for a bleeding heart, Ed. Puhleeze. Yeah all, what, 900 housing units of them? More than half of which are in the The Lofts at the Ballpark and Clayton Homes--many of these people who already moved out years ago? If the standard for "not being ignored" is that a $10 billion public works project that serves more than 100,000 people a day must be abandoned full stop, well I'd say they're out of touch.

Also very true--it would be helpful for me at least for people to express what they want rather than what they don't want. It's reducing congestion on one hand, but maybe it's more of congestion is OK as long as the freeway is not as wide. Or maybe it's congestion is great because people will be forced to move. It's transit on one hand, but maybe it's not commuter rail as much as it is frequent transit inside the Loop and the suburbs can pound sound. Like the Stop IH-45 Now stuff, I really just don't understand what they want. I think if they thought about it hard, maybe they'd come up with a different approach.

Oh boy, the logic there. Yes if you're adding 150,000 people to a metro area year after year after year, regardless of "reliable transit options," one should expect traffic volume to increase. Why? Because it's the primary driver.

The simplest explanation is more often than not the correct one!

"just The Woodlands and maybe Dallas"? Where on earth do you think the majority of the demand is coming from? Will all of your I-14 be built to the East Coast on a faster schedule than, say, I dunno, I-69 to Port Huron?

Well, for once I'm kind of sad to be right.

800 Bell may fit that bill, going on 8 years now, and certainly would be better described as a "major downtown asset" than this. But I hope you're right!

I have a friend whose company relocated right before COVID from The Woodlands to downtown, and he said when the announcement the atmosphere was like being at a wake. Sure, commute times were going to significantly going to increase for the vast majority of people, which is certainly reason to cry enough, but he said he couldn't believe the number of people who brought up how scared they were from a public safety perspective (lots of talk of muggings and homeless). Many of these people are recent transplants as the company consolidated offices here and essentially don't leave The Woodlands. You turn on the news at night and it's all focused on crime, you have the candidate of one of the major political parties for the county executive essentially airing ads telling people how unsafe it is in the city (basically if you go to an Astros game or take a walk on the Bayou, you're putting your life at risk), it's totally understandable, whether it is true or not. My cousin came and visited for some soccer tourney for her kid in 2021 . . . she lives in North Richland Hills. She literally asked me if my house was burned or sustained major damage in 2020 during "all the riots" (the riots referring to the George Floyd protests). I'm not sure she believed me when I said that I didn't have any damage (or come close to having any damage) and there weren't any buildings that were burned. Several instances of broken glass, sure, not denying there wasn't property damage, but this perception is what you're up against. Give them an opportunity or any excuse to stay in the suburbs because their commute now takes 75 minutes instead of 45, trust me, they will. And downtown, as has been the case my entire life, seems at times to be barely hanging on as it is. Certainly way better than it was before, but it's still nowhere near where many of us want it to be. So as much as you have anecdotes about spic and span rides on METRO, and how dangerous it is to drive in a car, I'd say these perceptions are way more powerful. They won't have personal anecdotes, perhaps, but they'll be happy to tell you how many home invasions they saw on Eyewitness News last week and how it "could've easily been them."

Thanks--maybe that drawing is not to be taken literally--seems odd they'd put a semi-elevated walkway in the middle of a parking lot, across a street, through the middle of another parking lot, and through a building. But maybe it will end up being some sort an industrial-esque architectural attraction in and of itself!

Disingenuousness aside, there is no "control" group, there never is and never will be. We'll never know what would've happened if I-10 weren't expanded or weren't expanded as much. I submit that it's just as likely that not expanding it would lead to even more sprawl over the long run. (Would it have led to sprawl if it weren't built in the first place? Of course not. But that's not where we are.) The heart of a big city depends on transportation to survive. In Houston and most American cities, the mode of choice is personal automobile, and the city and surrounding area have developed as such. You ignore this for ideological reasons, well, you inevitably do not get the outcome that you're hoping for.

All of that may be true, but what matters is perception. That is, assuming you want to get more people to ride transit. Maybe you don't. Maybe you're in the camp, "They shouldn't have decided to live 30 miles out of the city" so it's either "who cares what they think," "tough flurf," or "let's punish them by not expanding their freeways. Knocking on people's doors and pointing out transit versus car safety statistics and expecting people to go, "Oh, I see it now, gonna take the bus from now on" is just ridiculous. Similarly, having politicians tell voters that they just don't know what's good for them doesn't have a great track record, either. Seriously, there is so much back-and-forth on this forum about transit and highways, I have yet to see anyone propose anything comprehensive as to change the situation, other than "just build it," or "make them suffer." I'm not surprised, as the problem itself is intractable and multidimensionally so.