MaxConcrete

As best as I can recall, Fame City on Beechnut opened in the 1985-87 time period. The land developer built Beechnut from Dairy Ashford to Highway 6 a year or two before, and Fame City was one of the first major structures on that section of Beechnut. My recollection is that it was never very successful or well-regarded by the local area (I was in Sharpstown). I remember my cousin visiting in the summer of 1989 and she reported that it had a trashy crowd of patrons. As for what has transpired there between 1990 and now, I have no idea. I'm somewhat surprised to hear that it hasn't been bulldozed yet.

Why not? In Dallas, about 40% of the former Prestonwood mall was turned into a Super Wal-mart even though the area is mostly high-income. My experience is that the Wal-mart is very lightly patronized by Walmart standards. HISD has a responsibility to taxpayers to get the highest possible price for the property, even if it means a Costco or Super Walmart. I think it will be a plus for the inner loop to have a variety of retail opportunities, including big box retail. However, as other posts noted, nothing may happen for the time being until the rail issue is settled or construction is complete.

According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, Six Flags Arlington is getting 10 new attractions but only two are coming from Astroworld. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n2.e1d6c26.html I'm assuming the Rocket Ship is the Looping Starship. The "Sidewinder" sounds like the simple, classic amusement ride which has several pinwheels spinning on a main rotating wheel. I don't know what it was called as Astroworld. So, I'm wondering what will become of the newer, better rides, like the Serial Thriller, Batman, or Viper. It seems like those rides weren't ready for the scrap heap. Maybe they were high-maintenance. Six Flags on the fast track for expansion Arlington: 10 attractions to debut in March mark park's greatest addition 07:48 AM CST on Friday, November 11, 2005 By SUZANNE MARTA / The Dallas Morning News Six Flags Over Texas will open its season in March with 10 new rides

The land along the freeway is valuable for commercial development and its most economic use is not for parking. Further back, away from the freeway, land is less valuable and parking could be a viable use. I'm envisioning that the Livestock show and Rodeo organization would buy the property to be used for parking. I saw the thread about a mixed-use development, but my impression is that it was just speculation and possibly wishful thinking. If there is a plan in the works, then I suppose my idea is wrong. I would definitely like to see a mixed use development, but I'm a little skeptical the area can support it. I do see a need for more parking, a demand for commercial development along the freeway, and demand for some housing near the light rail station.

I think the most logical use is as follows: Strip of land along freeway (30%): strip malls and pad sites (restaurant, most likely) Southwest section (40%): additional surface parking for Reliant complex Southeast section (30%): apartment-style housing with easy access to the light rail, possibly with some retail mixed in This scenario would necessitate that the bridge over Loop 610 is retained to connect to the parking zone. I don't think that is a problem if the property is developed piecemeal. But if a developer wants to implement a comprehensive plan, the developer will probably want to get rid of the bridge and that would likely preclude a parking area. However, parking patrons could still potentially cross at Kirby.

I'm just curious what kind of film was used in this and your other posts. Many appear to be slide film. When I've worked with old slide film the color balance has typically decayed over time to an extreme (usually becoming red/magenta). The color balance on your images generally is very good. Did you adjust the color balance to restore it? Also, you may want to scan the slides using a scanner with ICE (such as Nikon Coolscan). It will remove all the dirt.

By popular demand, here are links to photos of the demolition on May 23, 2001. This was probably the last day of major demolition since they were clearing out the last remains of structures on that day. This view looks southwest from the Gulf Freeway http://houstonfreeways.com/images/gulfgate...01_ORIG_ADJ.png This view looks east http://houstonfreeways.com/images/gulfgate...01_ORIG_ADJ.png Here is the sign. It looked like it was being preserved. Is it still there? Your comment above suggests it is gone. http://houstonfreeways.com/images/gulfgate...01_ORIG_ADJ.png

You can find an aerial view of the shopping mall circa 1960 by going to this link http://houstonfreeways.com/ebook.aspx and downloading the Loop 610 file. The Meyerland view is on page 9 of the file, book page 282. JCPenney was not yet built in the photo. Neither was Loop 610. I remember going to Meyerland Plaza as a child in the 1970s when it was an open-air mall. It wasn't very impressive to me, compared to Sharpstown Mall.

If you want to refresh your memory about how the mall was configured around 1960, go to this link http://houstonfreeways.com/ebook.aspx and download the file for the Gulf Freeway. There is an aerial view on page 13 (book page 156) I took photographs of the demolition in 2001 (I think), but I don't have any online.

I went there as a child in the early 1970s. My recollection is very vague (I was born in 1967), but I remeber nice landscaping and some kind of boat ride through the park. I seem to remember that it was on the northwest side of the brewery building, visible from I-10. I also seem to remember news reports that it was closed since Busch wanted to concentrate their resources on the Tampa Busch Gardens.

I think it is reasonable to say that the Katy Freeway expansion empowered this project to happen. With the existing facility, I don't think the Memorial project would have moved foward due to chronic congestion and accessibility issues. Let's face it, everyone doesn't want to be downtown and it is great for people to have choices. Overall, I think this is the first vindication of the Katy Freeway as an economic development tool, and I'm sure more will come.

The Grand Parkway Association's timelines have always been overly optimistic. Going back 20 years, they always seem to be saying that there will be progress in the next few years, but there almost never is. The schedule shown probably represents the soonest the Parkway could be built if everything moved forward as fast as possible starting from the publication date (Dec 2004, I believe). Realistically this is not going to happen. Since everything will be tolled, financing is subject to the ability to generate toll revenue. In my view only sections F (F1 and F2) and possibly E can attract significant traffic. Section C could be viable, but forget about the rest of the sections. Right now only right-of-way protection is warranted.

A full five-level interchange is planned but is not included in the current phase of construction. So for the indefinite future vehicles will need to pass through the traffic light at I-10. As far as I know, none of the ramps at the interchange are funded. Also, you're calling the new SH 99 construction a tollway, but has that been established at this time? That project is being funded by TxDOT with gasoline tax funds. TxDOT is now tolling most gasoline-tax-funded projects, but not necessarily all gas-tax-funded projects. I'm not aware of any official decisions, although I know that TxDOT would like to turn over the entire existing section of SH 99 to HCTRA or FBTRA so it can be tolled.

Is it really taxpayer money? This money is almost surely coming from HCTRA's budget, which means that users of the Sam Houston Tollway are paying for it. Once again, this is toll revenue at stake, not tax funds. I think it is safe to say that no tax money (or a minimal amount) will be used for this project. If the ultimate tollway does not earn enough revenue to pay for itself, it will be subsidized by the users of the Sam Houston Tollway. The donated land model for the project development became non-viable when the area was urbanized. The original plan from the early 1980s was conceived at a time when it didn't take millions of dollars per segment to get environmental clearance. When environmental study costs exploded (mainly with ISTEA in 1991), the original plan developed by Lanier and others was down the drain. More importantly, if this is a tollway it will not use tax funds (or very minimal funds), plus it will not provide the same amount of benefit to the adjacent landowners (since tollways don't attract as much traffic as freeways). If HCTRA builds this project, I think the right-of-way will be narrower, not wider. As you know, HCTRA does things on the cheap. They're not going to buy more land than they need. I would expect a 300-foot-wide corridor from HCTRA. I would be very, very surprised to see the corridor wider than 400 feet. Now if TxDOT builts it, that's a different story. I would expect a 400 foot corridor, maybe even a 500 foot corridor with a set-aside for future multi-modalism. 18-wheelers are not going to use the Grand Parkway to any large extent, especially if it is heavily tolled. In fact, I seem to notice very few trucks on the Sam Houston Tollway when I drive it. The real money in the project is commuter traffic. As for beautification and enhancement, I think Save Our Spring should focus on that aspect rather than wage an opposition battle they are sure to lose. If they could get it built as a parkway rather than a clear-cut corridor freeway, it would be a very large step toward integrating it into the community with less impact and the potential for enhancing property values. After all, driving a nice wooded parkway to home can be viewed as a plus. Ideally, I think the corridor should be about 400 feet wide with a wooded median and wooded buffers on both sides of the parkway. As you know, HCTRA won't pay any attention to aethetics unless they are forced to. That's where Save Our Spring could play a role. As for Lanier, his real estate interests are now in downtown Houston so that is probably the main factor in his lack of interest in suburban freeways. Plus, Lanier may perceive downtown redevelopment as more of a challenge than freeway development, and perhaps he's looking to notch one more big accomplishment before he checks out. He really deserves a lot of the credit for the current downtown improvement since he started the process when he became mayor in 1991.

kjb434, you seem to be well plugged-in to the developments on the Grand Parkway. Perhaps you could elaborate on a couple items you mentioned and a few questions I have. 1. Are the contracts awarded this week mainly for engineering or is it a total restudy of the alignment? In other words, can we expect major alignment changes, or will they take the existing recommended alignment and just tweak it where necessary? 2. Will the corridor still be 400 feet wide if Harris County builds it (rather than TxDOT)? 3. Do you know if there is any plan to give the corridor true parkway characteristics? By that I mean not clear-cutting the corridor but instead leaving a wooded median, similar to I-45 north of Conroe? It seems to me that would make the highway much more acceptable to local neighborhoods. 4. In terms of the stack at SH 249 and SH 99, is that a long-term plan or can we expect to see some or all of the ramps built in the initial construction phase? 5. For the Chambers County section currently under construction, do you know if Ric Williamson and his henchmen on the commission are going to force that section to be tolled? It would seem absurd to me to toll it, since it would attract neglible toll-paying traffic and could possibly kill off development in the industrial areas nearby. www.fireRicWilliamson.com Thanks.

I'm glad to see HCTRA taking action. Northwest Harris County is going to fully urbanize with or without the Grand Parkway, and we'll just get a lower quality of life and more inefficient transportation options (eg FM 1960) is the Parkway is not built. Also, the Grand Parkway is needed south of the Woodlands where it is presently aligned, not north of the Woodlands. If the project is left to TxDOT, I think it will be moved. In fact, in the long run I think the Harris County alignment and another limited-access facility near FM 1488 will be needed. I'm not sure what you mean about Montgomery County become savvy. Do you mean that they see a profit in the tollway and would like to have it to themselves? Nothing is final until it is built, so I don't consider this a final decision. The window is closing due to the heavy urbanization of the area, and there's just enough time to get the job done. If the Parkway is built, future residents of the area will be thankful.