thedistrict84

17 minutes ago, Diaspora said:

Get some perspective. 

That’s a fair request. I’m all for helping those individuals who find themselves involuntarily homeless in transitioning back into society. I will also throw my support behind efforts to assist the homeless who suffer from mental health issues in getting the mental health assistance they need.

But I’m also a realist and understand that there is a subset of the homeless population who choose to remain homeless because they do not want to conform with the sobriety requirements of conventional shelters and homeless support services.

I assume by “low level” you mean “low barrier.” The idea of “low barrier” shelters (like what was apparently proposed for the 419 Emancipation facility) is that this subset of the homeless population can get the benefits of a shelter environment without having to take the steps to be personally responsible for their decisions and actions. “Low barrier” is unfortunately not a real solution to get this segment of the homeless population off of the streets permanently. 

So, to the extent that you are referring to plans that fell through to create a “low barrier” shelter in EaDo, to relocate the least desirable portion of the homeless population to EaDo to get them out of Midtown, then I still stand behind my comment.

3 hours ago, Diaspora said:

Until very recently we were anticipating a low level housing opportunity at 419 Emancipation,

Who is this “we” you keep referring to? Are you that plugged in with planning decisions in the area? If so, I guess I actually have reason for concern regarding your apparent glee with the prospect of treating EaDo as a dumping ground.

Also, as HoustonIsHome pointed out, a huge reason the homeless population is concentrated in Midtown is because there are many groups that are based there that directly serve the homeless population. You’re not going to make a meaningful dent in the homeless population in and around Midtown unless and until those places decide to relocate.

On 6/18/2018 at 11:23 AM, Diaspora said:

 activated pedestrian realm

I was worried for a second that this was an actual industry buzzword, but fortunately Google doesn’t seem to agree.

On 6/18/2018 at 11:23 AM, Diaspora said:

deep pockets are getting behind a refashioning of a decommissioned Pierce linear

Yup, developers essentially lining up to buy lots in the current Pierce Elevated ROW from the state are one of the big reasons that EaDo is getting steamrolled in the reroute project. The affected businesses and individuals in EaDo don’t have the collective clout these developers do.

This is basically the commercial real estate equivalent of a highway getting routed through the middle of a lower income neighborhood—think 59 splitting up the Fifth Ward, 288 knifing through Riverside Terrace, etc.

Curious if this is really just quid pro quo to “repay” campaign contributions from certain developers by giving them cut rate deals on prime real estate.

2 hours ago, MarathonMan said:

Looks like no retail on this project.  A shame, really.  East of Main Street, Midtown is kind of a retail desert.  Lots of non-profit homeless & no/low income services.  Lots of single family residential development.  But not one Starbucks.  I look at Mid Main and the Post Midtown at Gray & Bagby (and, presumably, the Caydon high-rise, which IS East of Main — barely!)as great examples of how GFR can make a neighborhood come alive.  Too bad some developers don’t develop for the long-term benefit and vibrancy of the neighborhood (Camden) but rather for their immediate ROI.  Hopefully this development will be a catalyst for a Mid Main-type development or two deep into Eastern Midtown.

Idk the seedy Greyhound McDonald’s just a few blocks from here is east of Main . . . that counts, right?

49 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I actually like this idea better. Re purposing the building IMO is a better option. 

Agree. I really like the idea of keeping that little nook of downtown as a “warehouse district” with renovated and repurposed commercial buildings (Wagon Works building, Nabisco building, etc.).

49 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Good morning!

 

http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Exclusive-Long-Awaited-30-Story-Midtown-Tower-Breaks-Ground/201230

This is great news! I drive by that site every day and was worried the project was abandoned. It seemed like it had been relegated to a retention pond after heavy rains.

It will be nice to see this get off the ground, although the Caydon tower got a nice head start.

38 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Picture Lamar Street in downtown Austin. Lots of really nice development. Now picture if they had built a freeway where Lamar Street is. Would you still have all that nice development?

 

It would not have developed in the same fashion, I agree. But Lamar, in terms of the way it tracks, is a bit different than Pierce Street, which tracks as straight as an arrow and was ideal for an elevated freeway.

My point was that the Pierce has not really hindered “nice development” in the immediate area, and even if it remains in place, Midtown and downtown will still continue to develop towards and converge at the Pierce.

And, buildings like 2016 Main long ago demonstrated that the half blocks along the Pierce can still be developed to abut it.

The real gain from removal of the Pierce would be approximately nine half blocks of real estate and removal of what amounts to predominately a visual barrier. Is that worth what would happen to the EaDo and the East End (given that the freeway cap park seems to be a pipe dream at this point)?

3 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

I never said there was a NEED for Downtown and Midtown to integrate by removing the Pierce Elevated.  Both districts will be fine if the Pierce stays.  And I’m not naive enough to think that the Pierce is going anywhere anytime soon.  I didn’t write anything to that effect.  My point, to be clear, was that I think freeways in general create unfortunate physical, visual and psychological barriers between neighborhoods.  When those barriers can be eliminated a city is better off. Vancouver, B.C., for instance, doesn’t do freeways near its core For this reason.  Another example, Klyde Warren Park in Dallas (over the Woodall Rogers Fwy).  That park is a great way to connect Uptown and Downtown Dallas.  I may be wrong, but I bet you’d be hard pressed to find someone who thinks otherwise.

 

 So, yes, I would love to see Midtown and downtown Houston more connected someday.  And I’d love to see I-45 gone between downtown and Buffalo Bayou Park.  That would be transformational for the city!

There will still be a freeway-like presence between downtown and Buffalo Bayou Park. Latest maps from last week still show several elevated connectors starting south of W Dallas originating at Bagby, Jefferson, etc. to connect to I-10 west and I-45 north. The Bayou will still have multiple, multi-lane bridges crossing it at the same point I-45 does now.

I agree with your concern about “creat[ing] unfortunate physical . . . barriers.” Unfortunately, the same plan that will (eventually) bring down part of the Pierce requires a rerouting of I-45 to the southeast of downtown that will actually create a physical barrier . . . for EaDo and the East End. More than a dozen vibrant city blocks eliminated, several streets that currently provide access to downtown cut off—a sizable physical barrier that will unequivocally have a detrimental impact to the neighborhood, more harm than the Pierce could ever be credited with.

I wish we could follow Vancouver’s example, but we passed the point of no return to do away with freeways near the CBD long ago.

On 5/17/2018 at 6:00 PM, MarathonMan said:

Both.  I live in Midtown and I love spending time downtown.  I also spend time in the Museum District/Hermann Park.  I think that, once the Pierce Elevated is eliminated (fingers crossed!), the two districts will integrate.  They’re both pedestrian-oriented and easy to navigate.

I don’t understand the need for downtown and Midtown to “integrate.” The presence of the Pierce Elevated has hardly stunted development in Midtown. Further, light rail passes through uninhibited, and all streets maintain a clean connection despite the half-block wide Pierce Elevated. There is still room for development on the southwest side of downtown and the northeast side of Midtown, with new projects announced in these areas recently. The only “barrier” that the Pierce Elevated seems to constitute is a visual barrier between the two districts. 

As I’m sure you’re aware, the Pierce Elevated coming down would be the last step in the I-45 reroute project. Best case scenario, and assuming no delays with this ambitious project, you’re probably looking at least 10 years before that happens. Hope you don’t develop a cramp keeping your fingers crossed for that long. 

5 minutes ago, intencity77 said:

Regardless of what’s built on this site it is going to create more traffic around it. It’s just inevitable in the big city and the East End is not immune to that. Whether it be a parking garage or a parking lot, either is going to create more traffic. The garage is larger than necessary because it will also likely facilitate whatever the rest of the future development will be on the site. What other development alternatives would Lovett have to choose from for this site that wouldn’t create traffic?? A low slung, tacky suburban style strip mall?  No thanks!  I for one personally want something dense and think this development is heading in the right direction so far. 

I agree with you completely regarding a "suburban style strip mall." Definitely do not want that (although if the Ross is still part of the plan, we're partially there already). The renderings I have seen here and elsewhere do look good, and the prospect of a nice restaurant and other retail here is very welcoming. I too am both a supporter of higher density developments and a big proponent of walkability, and this development seems to check those boxes. And, I'm one light rail stop away from this anyway, so an increase in vehicular traffic won't even directly affect me. 

My only point was that this is an intersection that is already problematic due to a confluence of factors: (1) the train crossings at Lockwood and Eastwood; (2) light rail on Harrisburg; and (3) Harrisburg being one lane due to light rail. The train brings traffic to a standstill. Traffic lights near light rail can be buggy and take forever to cycle. Have you ever tried to turn left onto Lockwood from Harrisburg there? I have, and sometimes it takes more than five minutes for the light to cycle when there is virtually no traffic. An exponential increase in traffic at this intersection could create a perfect traffic storm (a trafficane, if you will) under the right conditions. That's my concern. 

What else can be done with a lot that size that wouldn't bring the amount of traffic this likely will? Probably nothing. Unfortunately I don't have a solution, and even if I did, no one should listen to me anyway. I'm just making an observation about a potential issue that the developers have (hopefully) taken into account. 

Based on the number of parking spots in the site plan on the Lovett website and the size of the parking garage (which seems excessive in the first place, given the proximity to light rail), I’m concerned that this is going to create a trafficalypse.

Harrisburg is one lane through here due to light rail, which is obviously problematic. Throw a train into the mix, crossing Lockwood and Eastwood immediately southwest of this site, blocking those streets for 8 to 10 minutes at a time, multiple times a day? 

Yikes.

And yes, I realize that the garage will possibly be used much like a “park and ride” for light rail commuters, but again, that will create peak times for vehicular traffic and contribute further to the problem.