5 hours ago, editor said:

As for the department stores at train stations, I think these are always great.  I've been to dozens of them from Japan to Singapore to South Korea to Hong Kong, and elsewhere in Asia.  But the reason those things work there is because the train companies own the buildings.  A big part of the way mass transit is funded in Asia is through real estate speculation.  The train companies put up giant malls and skyscrapers and such around their stations because they own the land.  It's the whole "build it and they will come" thing. 

It works great.  It used to work here.  Most of America's grand hotels in the west were built by railroad companies to give people reasons to use the railroads.  Half of the suburbs of Chicago were founded by railroad companies so that people would commute into the city. But there's been a cultural shift in America, where it's widely seen as a bad thing for railroad companies, especially ones run by governments or quangos, to also put up buildings. 

It's perfectly OK for a government to engage in real estate speculation by investing its employees' pensions into buildings.  But because we have learned not to trust our government with finances, we don't like the investment to be direct.  Somehow, abstracting it away to a middle man is palatable.  But then, it's not the taxpayers who benefit.  Only the government employees, via their pensions.

Well the good thing about this project is that its an entirely privately funded affair. Texas Central will own the railroad, the land its built on, stations and the land they're built on. This means that Texas Central actually has a vested interest in investing in that land and building massive mixed use complexes rather than just stations, and encouraging Metro to directly link the station to existing and future transit network, from the current bus system, to the future BRT and light rail, to any future heavy rail connections. Basically, this high speed train is being built according to the Asian model, not according to the flawed American model, like the boondoggle we see in California and the great mistake that is Amtrak. Texas Central's greatest selling point and greatest asset is that it isn't a government project at all, so isn't tied up in the government's red tape and excess waste.

On 11/5/2021 at 5:17 PM, houstontexasjack said:

As I recall, the HCEDD was offered an eye-popping 4 positions on that council that worked on the agreement and declined. I’d think serious counsel would’ve told them what a big offer that actually was.

I wrote to Councilwoman Shabazz-Evans today to express my support for the proposed agreement. 
 

Edit: @BeerNut posted a letter from Rice last November indicating Rice offered 4 of 15 spots on the CBA Working Group to the HCEDD. 

Exactly. HCEDD demanded a whopping 8 positions on the working group. That would have given them majority control. No way that was going to fly.

On 11/8/2021 at 2:36 PM, HouTXRanger said:

Man, he REALLY got the locations of the Houston and Dallas stations wrong . . . regardless don't really disagree with his points. We've already discussed the pros/cons of the Houston station to death.

I don't think the location of the stations is bad. One thing city beautiful really missed is that those European stations he is so fixated one? When they were originally built, they were actually far outside the city, not in the center of it, because nobody really wants to live next to a busy train station. Those cities grew to encompass their stations; the stations weren't just plopped in an already existing neighborhood. The 24 Hour Neighborhoods followed the stations, not the other way around. It really doesn't matter where the stations are built in regards to what surrounds them. All that matters is their connection to transit (and that includes local freeways and roads, not just mass transit) and whether or not there is actually demand for a high speed train between Houston and Dallas (and I think there is). The whole "24 Hour neighborhood that caters to the train station" will grow up on its own time naturally, if the station is successful. Hotels, restaurants and the like will follow the stations. What I'm wondering is if they will develop the stations into massive mixed use facilities, like stations in Japan, with department stores and shopping malls built inside them, alongside alongside Bus Terminals. Think Shinjuku Station, or Ōsaka Station.

6 hours ago, editor said:

I see a sign up for 7 Houston Center, but I don't have a sense of how long it's been there.  Any chance of that happening, or is that project dead?

You mean Six Houston Center? That actually already has a thread.

5 hours ago, X.R. said:

Yeah, even if they didn't have such a great least I don't think corporate Dillards would want to let that space go. Free advertising b/c of proximity to the highway, it was sporadically busy during COVID (maybe people didn't want to go into the actual mall), and it has easily accessible parking. You'd prolly have to pry it from their cold dead hands (given how brick and mortar retail has been tho...). When I worked at Macy's a while back, they internally would say that Galleria Macy's was at least a top 5 earner in the country. I'm sure Dillard's has similar internal numbers for that site. 

Oh it is. From what I understand that store is generally one of the best performing Dillard's in the entire country. That seems to be the case with stores in and around the Galleria in general.

11 hours ago, ADCS said:

I want trains everywhere too, but stopping the NHHIP isn't going to get us anywhere closer to that.

Tell that to the people opposing it.

12 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

Squeeze a 1400 footer behind Esperson in that shot and the symmetry will be perfect

Had the Bank of the Southwest Tower been built as planned, you would have had your wish.

On 10/19/2021 at 9:49 PM, jmitch94 said:

Why were so many blocks leveled, was it apart of the disastrous unban renewal movement? 

Houston Center primarily. The Texas Eastern Corporation bought 32 city blocks and leveled all of it to build Houston Center, which was one of the largest private development projects ever envisioned. However, only a fraction of that land was ever developed to specification, leaving most of the land as vacant parking lots. Most of those blocks remained undeveloped as late as 2004. Four Houston Center was originally the designation of a 54 story office tower, which was never built. The name was subsequently adopted by the squat office building where the shops at Houston Center are.

On 9/30/2021 at 7:13 AM, thatguysly said:

That bathtub view is about to be a whole lot different when the senior living tower goes up next year.

Senior living? What tower is that?

17 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I have to fully agree. I think we also need to realize that at the time this was developed, driving to an area to work was the thing to do. In reality, had Houston built smart and not allowed the car to dominate development, this area would be nothing but open country. So with everyone moving back to the city, this area is going to return to what it should be. I can see homes, some apartments, and a few business parks remaining but there’s no reviving that mall. 

The car was always going to dominate development, because that was the standard nationwide, and federal and state policies encouraged it. And even if it didn't, that area wouldn't have been open country, anymore than the suburbs of Paris are open country. The mall is unsalvageable because it doesn't need to be; there are more than enough malls in the area to pick up the slack, between Willowbrook, Woodlands, and Deerbrook. Too much competition to make it viable. But the skyscrapers are quite viable for their continued usage. Not everybody is moving back into the city; in fact, the suburbs are still adding tens of thousands every year. Most people are still moving out to the suburbs, not the inner city (not to say nobody is moving back to the city) and with rising crime in many American inner cities, the trend towards suburban development may only accelerate.

1 hour ago, rechlin said:

Interesting to see they are now asking for federal loans when previously it was going to be privately funded.

Its still privately funded. Private projects and businesses get loans all the time.

2 hours ago, citykid09 said:

 

$400 billion ‘city of the future’ might land in the Lone Star State

https://austin.culturemap.com/news/innovation/09-07-21-400-billion-city-of-the-future-might-land-in-the-lone-star-state/

 

Hopefully these extreme crazy conservatives don’t run them off. 
 

 

Are you kidding me? They'd want to be here! Can you imagine the tax breaks?!

On 8/25/2021 at 10:27 AM, j_cuevas713 said:

Thanks for making my point

As @mattyt36 said, I don't really get what your point is. What is your actual point here? Fact of the matter is, these are a bunch of businesses nobody cares about, and no, they don't make Houston great, at least not on their own. There are hundreds of businesses like them, many of which actually support this project. Should this one business which opposes this project, for its own selfish reasons, get more consideration than others which support it, for their own self-interested reasons?

7 hours ago, Naviguessor said:

 

The phrase "Being Taken" is misleading.   Owners of properties are being compensated.   Business can move, change or cash out.  Happens all the time.   

Yeah, that was slip of the tongue on my part. I didn't want to imply that they were "literally" just going to take the business from them, only that they were going to get hit with eminent domain.

6 hours ago, samagon said:

more articles about how adding lanes just doesn't help.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08/please-stop-adding-more-lanes-to-busy-highways-it-doesnt-help/?comments=1&post=40177651

Austin is specifically referenced, and Houston is pictured.

Poor TxDOT is taking a beating.

Except the main point of this project is not to add lanes. Segments 1 and 2 are mainly adding bus/managed lanes. Segment 3 isn't adding any lanes at all, only moving existing lanes to the other side of downtown, sinking a whole bunch of lanes below grade, and straightening the freeways. This segment for I-69 south of downtown is only sinking a freeway, not adding lanes. So this argument is completely pointless in regards to this project. In fact, I remember the old Keep Houston Houston blog criticizing the proposal years ago specifically because it didn't add any lanes, as it pointed out that one of the problems with the downtown ring is that it has far fewer lanes within it than the freeways coming into it and going out of it carry, which snarls traffic is you squeeze multiple lanes into tighter roads.

5 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah just a bunch of businesses nobody cares about like Matty and Big E said. These are what make Houston great. 

Congratulations, you found one of the probably 500 optical businesses in the city. Will you post a picture of one of the car lots too?

Also, it says Third Ward on that sign so I looked it up. They are right next to the section of I-69 that's going to be sunk between Midtown and the Museum District. Keep in mind, that's one of the sections almost everyone universally wants to happen and nobody has a problem with. I don't even know if their business is actually in danger of being taken, since that segment is not going to have expanded ROW, I don't think. Then again, the nearby Mexican Consulate is moving, so maybe they are taking it just in case.

If these guys were smart, they would have already made plans to move to a different location anyway. Sinking the freeway here would be a net positive for all of the surrounding communities, and nobody actually opposes this segment, so these guys should just suck this one up and move. One business should not stop something that would benefit the larger region.

1 minute ago, Houston19514 said:

Nobody said it can't be done.  Of course it can be done.  The question is whether it would make sense to spend Tens of Billions of Dollars extra for a tunnel.  Tunnels can make sense in certain places (like to get a railroad through the Alps, when  the alternatives are (a) to go over the Alps, or (b) try to engineer additional capacity in very constrained and congested mountain passes) 

In this case, I think it would. It would be a great help to the surrounding environment and community, allow them to work on the entire freeway without causing significant disruption to existing traffic, and remove any perceived issues of adding lanes or increasing highway footprint. 

On 8/20/2021 at 8:40 AM, Montrose1100 said:

Would love to see some smaller and more interesting residential/hotel there.

Doubt we'll get anything "small". All the other vacant lots around there are huge, full city blocks. Big signature towers ahoy! Either that or a bunch of squat, boxy apartments, like the lots closer to the ballpark and freeway.

On 8/21/2021 at 7:23 AM, West Timer said:

No. More glass. Less stucco/brick/cement.

As long as its not ugly, I don't really care what its made out of. Though glass is decidedly "in", as far as looks go.

14 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

I presume you're referring to the Massey Tunnel replacement.  About $3.25 Billion USD for an 8-lane tunnel roughly 700 meters long.  Soooo.... somewhere in the ballpark of $85 Billion to do an 8-lane tunnel from the Beltway to the Loop.  Yeah, we should definitely do that.

I mean, it would be a huge mega project, that's for sure, but they are literally building a far longer tunnel through freaking mountains in Europe, between Italy and Central Europe, so it can be done. A tunnel like that could probably get federal backing, since the idea of burying a massive eyesore of a freeway would be something a lot of the current crop of bureaucrats in Washington would probably get behind. But I would take them just burying I-45 through downtown in its current footprint, deep enough so that the area it vacates could be built over, and connecting Spur 527 to it via tunneling to remove the need for lanes connecting directly to I-69.

44 minutes ago, HoustonBoy said:

The majority of American highways in urban settings are inherently racist. Not by their existence, but by their placement. This is highly documented and can be seen in most, if not all, major cities. Developers in the 40s, 50s, and 60s were openly racist and used highways to separate and financially ruin communities of color.

Freeways also ran through parks, business areas, rich communities, downtowns, waterfronts, etc. They were pretty indiscriminate in what they ran through during that period, as the focus was to run the freeway in the straightest possible route from point A to point B. This is part of the reason why the freeway revolts started in the first place; nobody was safe from them, and even the prominent wealthy communities and neighborhoods had to sit up and take notice. Remember that the first major freeway revolt happened because New Orleans wanted to build a massive expressway through the French Quarter along the riverfront.

1 hour ago, ADCS said:

I think TxDOT and TTI take a lot of pride in the solutions that have been developed in-state (not to mention, the local engineering companies and construction companies have a lot of pull in the Lege). However, given the lack of mountain highways or submarine tunnels built in the last 80 years, not much research into or experience from building tunnels exists within the state. That's why I think there's the bias toward cut-and-cover methods for depressed highways, rather than underground tubes.

It's not geology either - Houston used to have two functioning tunnels (now just the Washburn), and near Vancouver, they're about to rebuild a tunnel through alluvial silt in the middle of a very seismically active area (needs to withstand up to MM9.0 earthquakes).

I can appreciate that TxDOT lacks practical experience here. I can also appreciate that everyone remembers Boston's "Big Dig" and the right mess and a half that was. But the Big Dig worked; the freeway was sunk down, removing a massive eyesore from central Boston, capacity was added successfully, and a new East-West cross bay connection was added to the airport, taking pressure off the Central Artery. It was ultimately successful, despite the cost overruns, delays, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests, and death of one motorist. We can learn from the failures of that project and know what mistakes to not make next time. The Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement happened largely without (major) incident (there was one semi-major incident that stopped the project for two years) compared to the Big Dig.

1 hour ago, samagon said:

the freeway certainly can be toxic, by virtue of the cars that it is designed to convey spewing all sorts of toxins that are known to cause asthma among other things to people within a certain distance of the freeway. even if we get to a future where BEV is the primary single occupant vehicle, we're probably 30, or more years away from that.

True, cars are toxic polluters, but the freeway itself is just a big slab of concrete; if it was mostly unused or underutilized, it wouldn't have much effect on the actual environment.

1 hour ago, samagon said:

through the demographics of the residents of areas around freeways, you can make all sorts of logical conclusions about racism and freeway location. specific to segment3 of NHHIP, they're removing the freeway from the rich white side of downtown and relocating it on the poorer and less white side of downtown. it's hard to not jump straight to the racism, and oppression of the underrepresented as at least part of the reason there.

They are moving I-45 to that side because there is literally no other place to effectively move it. Since TxDOT won't completely bury I-45, and I-69 isn't being moved, only sunk, that is the most logical place to put the new freeway. TxDOT are probably counting on the fact that they are sinking both freeways, and a possible future highway cap, as making up for this. If the cap happens, no matter how one feels about them moving the freeway to that location, its probably a net positive for the community in the end.

Just now, kennyc05 said:

Like I said in a earlier post they should have went with a tunnel between the beltway and 610.

I definitely agree with that.

On 8/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, samagon said:

just read this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2021-08-20/austin-at-large-aint-no-highway-wide-enough/

which also links to this article https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2002-09-20/102944/

both good reads, and aside from locations, and the names of those fighting against TxDOT it reads very similar to what we're doing today.

although it does make me rethink, if we reject this current TxDOT plan, they will not take another crack at redesign for a while.

the problem is still, that's not a good enough reason to accept it.

Austin is no real model to anyone on anything regarding traffic, highways, or transit, considering how bad its own traffic issues are, directly due to its lack of major north-south and east-west routes, how terrible and broken its own street grid is, its persistent suburban sprawl, and lagging transit. I-35 is a mess and probably does need to be rebuilt, especially the double decked portion. But the one thing this article makes supremely clear is that TxDOT is deafly afraid of even attempting to tunnel a highway, and will always throw that idea out first. Which makes the fact that they aren't planning to cap I-45 and I-69 themselves make all the more sense. Also, calling a freeway "racist and toxic" is just stupid. A freeway, by virtue of being a big slab of concrete, can be neither of those things. 

On 8/16/2021 at 3:29 PM, KirbyDriveKid said:

Boy do I miss the St. Luke's/Texas Childrens needles :(  The wedding cake roof is much less impressive without them.

I didn't even realize the needles were gone till you said something! Why did they take them down?

On 8/16/2021 at 11:31 AM, samagon said:

well I've seen plenty of people in this same thread talk about how good this will be for people who drive cars without knowing what the people who drive cars actually want. so many people, we just have to let them build it, and if we don't let them build it, then nothing will be built.

this bolded part is beyond asinine, it is TxDOT's duty to maintain our highways, whether this project goes forward or not doesn't mean they get to toss up their hands and say 'well, we tried, sorry Houston, you are SOL with this freeway in perpetuity', they are still on the hook to maintain and update as our city needs.

people here may not be saying it, but TxDOT is suggesting it, and many stories about the project seem to suggest that this is a you take it or leave it prospect, and that just isn't a thing.

I mean the actual positives of the project for people who will use the freeway (like trucks no longer running into bridges) are things we can calculate to some degree, regardless of whether people who will be using the freeway the most want the project or not. But in regards to that particular point, it must be pointed out that most of the known opposition to the freeway is coming from inner city interests, not suburban interests, and the general assumption by most people in regards to this highway, even in this very thread, has been that the freeway will mainly benefit three groups: 1) suburbanites and commuters,  2) intrastate/interstate traffic, and 3) crosstown traffic. Nobody's polled any of those people either, even though it seems to be the general consensus that it will benefit them, but those groups are not overwhelmingly or even minorly opposed to this project.

And of course they will maintain the freeway as is, as they've continued to do while they were planning for this project. But that's irrelevant to the discussion. This freeway is old, outdated, and has tangible issues, which people have brought up numerous times in this thread. Not engaging this project means those issues don't get fixed, no matter how much preventative maintenance is done on the road. The Pierce Elevated is not getting any younger, and the North Freeway is still one of the most raggedy freeways in Houston. These issues remain, whether the road is still undergoing maintenance or not.

However, if this project goes pear shaped, the state will take the money allocated to it and spend it somewhere else, more than likely in another more reliably Republican part of the state. The TxDOT is obligated to maintain the freeway. It isn't obligated to fix its issues, do anything else with it, or keep fighting with the city and county to get things done. They will just leave Houston holding the bag. So yes, this is a "you take it or you leave it" project. You take it as is, or the state reallocates the funds. The money will get spent, but it doesn't have to get spent in Houston.

38 minutes ago, samagon said:

it isn't clear what the people in farther outlying areas want either. and at the same time there are a lot of politicians that represent outlying areas that are acting for this project for their own self interest as well.

Which I've never discounted, nor have I ever seen anyone in this thread discount either, but I've seen people in this thread act like the actions of a few inner city politicians equals everyone in Houston opposing the project, not the other way around. I've also seen people try to discount the support provided by other such inner city politicians. It works both ways, and my point has always been that nobody has actually asked the general population how they feel about the project, and maybe they should.

11 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So the way this highway is currently designed is ok why?

Seriously, stop putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about the highway's design as it is. I am completely fine with it as is? No. honestly, I would have preferred to tunnel the entirely of I-45, but I know that's not going to happen. I understand that I'm not going to get everything I want. However, I am not violently opposed to this project. I think it does more than enough good to make up for any issues I would have had with the design.

13 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

You’re clearly in favor of a project that is going to destroy and displace countless businesses, homes, etc. for the next 10+ years for what, to save people 5 minutes in traffic?

It is not going to destroy "countless" anything. People have already gone over the numbers of what will and will not be destroyed in this thread. Some of the stuff that is being destroyed, like Clayton Homes, is already slated for demolition anyway. Most of the residential buildings being destroyed are multi-family residential primarily populated by renters, who will just rent somewhere else. The businesses are car centric, dime a dozen garbage joints that nobody in this thread actually cares about, like used car dealerships, fast food joints, and gas stations. And no, this isn't only going to save people time in traffic. If you had actually been paying attention to this thread, people have actually brought up other benefits, such as making transit improvements, removing dangerous low hanging bridges that trucks smash into, and other improvements to make the road safer and more modern.

18 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 I don’t speak for all of 2nd Ward you’re right but you don’t seem to care either way.

I do care. I also have perspective. Its unfortunate when people lose their homes, but this is just something that will happen with any major infrastructure project. I've have perspective to see the greater benefit of the highway and how it will benefit the region, beyond the few homes to be removed.

20 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

And my point of bringing up public transit is to bring more awareness to the countless billions we spend on highways. The fact TxDOT hasn’t evolved to want to incorporate other modes of transit or local ideas is ridiculous.

As I've said earlier in this thread, rapid transit is not their prerogative. Its METRO's. And, as has already been brought up in this thread, transit improvements ARE PART OF THE PROJECT. Stop expecting TxDOT to do something it wasn't even brought in to do in the first place. It wasn't brought in to put in a mass transit system. It was brought in to improve a highway.

23 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 I’m happy to see push back from community leaders and local grassroots movements.

Well that makes one of us.

23 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

All of that for whatever reason seems to not mean much to you along with any current data we have about how Houstonians want to travel.

Still waiting on that mythological data...

56 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I’m all up for discussion but I can speak for a lot of people in 2nd Ward cause I live here.

Anecdotal evidence at best. Even then, you and your friends don't speak for the entire second ward.

56 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Many people here rely on transit to move around, some don’t even own cars. 

That would only be relevant if the project was being done to specifically benefit them. It isn't. And most people in the Greater Houston region do own cars and do drive them and the entire region is car centric. One small neighborhood not having a high rate of car ownership means little in regards to this project.

58 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

So none of that data proves anything?

What data? You've offered nothing.

59 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

All of that conceptual stuff looks great to people who won’t have to spend the next 10+ years next to a bulldozer.

Everyone in the city is going to have to put up with that construction, including other neighborhoods. That fact alone is not reason enough to stop any project.

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

The current project does nothing but create an even deeper divide between those that live in 2nd/3rd Ward and the rest of the city.

This project creates nothing. The freeway is already there. The divide happened decades ago, before many of the current residents were born, and will still be there, whether this project goes through or not.