mike1

"Tunnels"..."skyways"..."convenience"... them there's fightin' words around these parts!

Thanks for the pic. It does kind of look like one of those old timey gas pumps with the big orange sign on top. Good idea or bad , it must have been quite a sight in its day!

Agreed...and it would also nice for those of us who would like to have a place downtown to take our children. While a Zen meditation space might be a good idea, try keeping a 2-yr old entertained and out of trouble on an empty plot of grass and trees. Besides, most of us in the 'burbs already have empty green serene spaces in our own back yards--no reason to go downtown for that! I agree with MidtownCoog that this park seems a little busy on paper, but if it draws families, children, and others who will actually spend money downtown, it will lead to development. In that case, I'm all for it, flaws and all!

I can agree with this point. Not every challenge is the same, and different developments require different plans depending on the desired outcome. A tunnel is a great solution for certain types of development but may be inappropriate in other instances. Its hard to speak about this in general terms. In the meanwhile, I agree to let everyone else on this site have their own daily routines as long as they agree to let me have mine.

I think we agreed to leave the "tunnel good...tunnel bad" debate for another time and place. We're never going to convince each other and its not really on point with the topic at hand. I admit to going outside when the weather is nice, and I assume you'll admit that the tunnels are convenient at least for some people some of the time...

Hope so! My comment was more in jest, as the previous post conjured up a funny image in my mind... Sorry, no more bad humor!

Good point about the dog run/picnic area. Nothing like getting a good Fido leg-humping while trying to eat your burger! Not to mention all of those little doggie mines that will be all over the place! Kinda reminds me of Cousin Eddie's dog under the table in Christmas Vacation!

Poor Tillman.... ....in his defense I will say that I know people who will drive over an hour and a half to get to Kemah but won't spend less than half the time and distance going downtown. He must be doing something right over there in Kemah...that place is packed almost 24-7! Can we say the same about downtown?

Does look like they're trying to do a little too much given the size of the area...and, yes, the putting green is a little over the top. Hopefully, they'll scale back a little before they actually start moving dirt. Other than that, it looks like it would be a nice place to take children, at least.

I do, in fact, admit to doing both. I'll normally walk on street level at lunch and at quittin' time, but I'll use the tunnels for appointments and when I'm in a rush. Kind of like using the expressway versus taking the scenic route. I was in the courthouse tunnel system one time, as part of a jury pool: "Catacombs" is an apt description! Unfortunately, I just recently moved from downtown out to the Westchase area. Trying to navigate Westheimer at lunchtime makes even the tunnels feel like a leisurely weekend stroll around the block!

Good for you, but I bet if the tunnel system did connect to the courthouse (which is something that desperately need to happen) most people who work there would use it. I guess that explains the lack of newer commercial development in that area too. You all can debate my subjective level of comfort and relative laziness in getting around downtown, but you still can't challenge my point that most people prefer to use the tunnels when given an option to do so and that tunnels can be used to help spur downtown development. Absolutely, I agree with you on that one: downtown can be made to accommodate a variety of different needs and uses. One person's vision for downtown need not preclude someone else's ...and yes the topic has drifted severely! I think it started when someone made the connection between underground garages and the underground tunnel system, but I'm not really sure at this point. I guess I stepped in a world of sh** by piping up on this topic!!

They did build tunnel systems

Sure

But don't you see? That's exactly the problem...everyone is so terribly concerned with preserving some urban vision that they have for downtown that they neglect the things that actual people might want to have down there. I've worked downtown for over 5 years and can personally attest that despite all of the grumblings on this site about how much the tunnel system sucks, it's certainly better than walking street-level in the middle of the 110 degree August heat or in the middle of one of Houston's monsoons. Additionally, the tunnels certainly seem more economically viable than almost anything that's on street level. Downtown would be unbearable about 70% of the year if it weren't for the ability to get from one place to another without having to go out into the heat and the elements. Instead of fighting what is an obvious preference for almost everyone who lives, works, or owns a shop or restaurant downtown, why shouldn't the city develop plans to incorporate its benefits? Why continue to kick against the goads? Be honest, those of you who actually work and live downtown: for all of the complaining that goes on about the tunnel system, how many times do you find yourself actually using it? (I'll bet it's more than you would care to admit on this site!) It might feel good to complain about people being too lazy to walk outside, but where does it get you when you ignore what most people obviously want? It goes back to the point that no matter what you decide to build down there, it better meet people's wants and needs, or else it WILL fail...

To each his own, but parks raise land values and with increased land values also comes the type of development that you would like to see. I've heard the same sentiments that we already have a park from others, which I find really funny because a common complaint in other areas of this site is exactly that Houston doesn't have enough "green space" (read that to mean "parks")! I think a good mix of parks, transportation improvements, sports, and entertainment venues like we are seeing on the eastern edge of downtown will ultimately draw developers who are willing to invest in mixed use development. Conversely, acres of parking lot space and intimidating no man's land will lead precisely to what we've gotten for the last 20 years--nothing! Let's think about this rationally--if you were a developer, would you rather place your multimillion dollar high rise, mixed-use, investment in the middle of an endless asphalt moonscape, or would you rather bet on an up-and-coming area with amenities such as parks and entertainment venues? If you were an apartment buyer or a store owner, in which type of area would you rather locate your business or residence? The park is important because it leads to investment and development.

Might have to address flooding issues, though. Remember Allison..

If they do decide to go ahead with this thing, I think the biggest waste would be to develop the park so as to exist isolated in the middle of a vast oasis of surface parking and undeveloped real estate without offering any reason for people to go over and visit. Either they need to develop the park so that it's incorporated into already existing downtown development, or they need to develop it so that it attracts new development into the surrounding areas on its own. At least underground parking would draw pedestrian traffic through the area in the near-term and would serve as a catalyst for long term growth in the surrounding blocks. This is my problem with relying on surface parking alone: in the absence of any existing or future draw for people to that area except on game day, the park is likely to become just another haven for the homeless. In that case, it would be a tremendous waste of money. Either the city goes all-out and develops the park properly so as to be a cornerstone of future downtown development, or else they should just forget about it entirely. If the park proves successful in spurring development, the money spent on it won't be waste; it will be an investment that pays tremendous dividends over the long run.

But my question is, who exactly is this underground parking for? The people who are (aren't?) going to drive downtown from outside downtown to go to Pavilions, GRB, Toyota, and the park itself? Perhaps in 20 years, it will be considered terrific foresight... People who work downtown. Monthy parking rates can run $200 for good, covered spaces, especially if they are connected directly to Houston Center or the Park Shops via the tunnel system. Not a bad source of revenue for the city.

Exactly. Take a look at what those areas have to offer and make it better. Downtown needs to find and exploit niche demands that cannot be met anywhere else. I see so much demand in this town for culture, and for a sense of sense of place and history, that downtown couldn't help but be successful if only it would meet the basic needs of the marketplace. As you mention, keeping retail open during non-working hours would be a start--a basic rule of marketing is to be available when your customer is available, which means non-working hours and weekends. I would also add cleaning up the place so that people feel safe and secure being down there. Downtown is one of the safest areas of town, but it is PERCEIVED as being dangerous because it is so dark after hours, because there are so many panhandlers, and because there seems to be so much graffiti and litter in certain areas. Perception IS reality, so make sure the place is open, clean, and adequately lighted so that people have a reason to be there AND feel safe. Downtown development couldn't help but happen under those conditions. OOPS...didn't HISD already do that!

Instead of sticking their collective noses up at people who live outside of Beltway 8, the downtown types would be better off trying to learn what factors drive so many people to live, work, and shop out there in the first place. The market is going to ultimately drive the success or failure of any downtown redevelopment plan, and so it behooves those who promote downtown to learn what works elsewhere and to incorporate those ideas into their plans. You could build the Taj Mahal downtown, but if it doesn't take into account the needs of the people who will be using it, it will ultimately be a failure.

Not to be facetious, but would that be so bad? From an economic standpoint at least, the Sugar Land town center is a thriving commerical center with lots of potential for pedestrian traffic flow around it, while downtown struggles to maintain a Foleys and a CVS. Perhaps downtown has something to learn from the 'burbs.

Yes. That's true for now, but if dense development does occur around the park (and that seems to be the consensus of what most people on this site want to have happen), then the parking situation will inevitably tighten up. It's infinitely better (and cheaper) to plan for the development we hope will happen by building the appropriate infrastructure up front. Otherwise, we'll just end up having to go back in 10-20 years later to destroy what will have become a local landmark in order to build in what should have been there in the first place. Furthermore, building the infrastructure up front will itself act as a catalyst to spur development that is currently lacking around the park. Developers are infinitely more likely to build around areas where people have adequate access than in areas that may be more ecologically sensitive but lack basic infrastructure. Isn't a lack of planning and foresight why people are always criticizing the city in the first place?

I don't know if replying to my own reply is against the rules, but I had another thought occur to me on this subject. It seems ironic that in posting after posting on this site, everyone complains about the lack of urban-style development and growth in the center city, but when something does happen everyone complains about the type of development that is taking place.. It seems that we can't have it both ways; either we leave lots of open green space and put up with the resulting sprawl or we go dense with urban walking environments by building vertical and digging underground to conserve space. Houston is getting bigger by the day and it

It's important to remember that we're talking about downtown here, and not virgin national park land. I mean, keeping the surface park connected to the water table may be ideal, but I don't think building subsurface parking is a bad alternative should parking become necessary. It certainly beats the popular Houston alternative of paving the whole thing under and putting up a strip center. Furthermore, subsurface parking, tunnels, and freeways are done all of the time in other major cities. How many subway tunnels would you bet run under Central Park in NYC, for example? My point is that underground parking in this location, or even a freeway tunnel under Herman Park, wouldn't exactly be the end of the world if those things were to become necessary. Besides, how much downtown runoff water would you really want in the water table anyway?

I did some research and found something on the Gulf Building Sign in the Houston Chronicle archives. Quite an interesting history, and quite contraversial at the time, it seems. Here's the link: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive....id=2001_3296980