Big E

Wasn't the Houston Fire Dept. Headquarters in this building? If so, where did they move?

On 6/22/2022 at 9:46 PM, texan said:

Why are he and Jackson Lee framing this as if they had no idea about it? Are they that disconnected or are they taking the opportunity to cash in on political clout?

Obvious answer is obvious.

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I must say, I don't really understand why they had to buy, let alone completely demolish, all three blocks.  I wish their recent communication had at least attempted to explain that.

Good question. Pretty sure the required ROW stops at Emanuel Street. I doubt the owners are sweating it though; they got a lot of money for that land.

On 6/22/2022 at 3:10 PM, X.R. said:

., so they're anticipating beginning when a new administration is on its way to DC.

I mean, shoot man, the way things are going now, that may realistic be the earliest they can start on it. I'm hoping that once the Dems get the crap kicked out of them at the midterms, things will get going again.

20 hours ago, DotCom said:

There were some recent comments/questions about the location of upcoming buildings, so I'm reposting the last site plan that I remember seeing.  Last month the Texas A&M Board of Regents was considering "Authorization to Negotiate and Execute a Ground Lease of 2.6252 Acres of Land and Other Agreements Related to the Construction of Up to Two Research and Educational Buildings on the TMC3 Campus".  Then there was a TABS filing a couple weeks ago for "Industry Building Parcel D Bld B".

https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/TABS/Search/Project/TABS2022020772

Interesting that a good chunk of phase one hasn't started yet. Of course they are working on the helix gardens, and they've started construction on the Mixed Use Garage, Collaborative Building, and Industry Building One. But correct me if I'm wrong, they've done no work at all on the Member Institutions building? They for sure have done nothing for the Hotel, Conference Center, and Residential Building, and I don't think the UTHealth or MD Anderson buildings have started either.

1 hour ago, samagon said:

routing i45 through traffic (and even routing traffic that will be transferring to 59 or i10) onto 610 is a good idea.

That's a TERRIBLE idea. The 610 can barely handle the traffic it has now, and would have to be massively expanded to handle the extra load, necessity a far more extensive ROW acquisition and neighborhood destruction than what this is proposing.

44 minutes ago, Joke said:

I've done a little searching, but couldn't easily find what's happening with Pierce Elevated. Has that been decided?

The Pierce Elevated will no longer be a freeway. It appears they are trying to push to turn it into a skypark, but I don't know if that's final or anything.

44 minutes ago, Joke said:

Also, any chance that this will do something about how Spur 527 turns all of west Midtown into just a dangerous ingress/egress path to downtown at the rush hours? Try walking between, say, Drew at Bagby and the McGowen light rail station at rush hour -- it's a car-filled nightmare. 

Spur 527 will not be touched as part of this project, other than potentially changing the configuration of its merger with U.S. 59/I-69, since that is being sunk below ground.

46 minutes ago, Joke said:

Alternatively, making 59 to the east side of downtown much more appealing would also do the trick, but I don't know if this does that.

They are sinking 59/69 east of downtown below grade. That's also where they are moving 45, which will also be sunk below grade.

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

I've just explained why they should be limited. We aren't a pure laissez-faire city, that's a myth. We banned billboards and have been buying out the ones that are grandfathered. We banned most forms of signage downtown. We've created parking minimums and setback laws. There are something like 17 scenic districts and I forget how many historic neighborhoods. The pure laissez-faire Houston is long gone and most people appreciate the improvements. Banning skybridges in transit-oriented-development areas would be another improvement.

Pretty sure many people on this very forum (and in fact, urbanists and city planning types in general) call for the abrogation of parking minimums and setback laws because of the perceived negative effects they have on cities and their planning, such as encouraging car usage. In a situation where people already think our laws are unnecessary or should be repealed, I am not really for adding another unnecessary law on top of that.

3 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

From a property rights standpoint, skybridges over public rights-of-way are not “laissez-faire.” Those rights of way have been planned out and are part of the public “bundle of sticks” we get for living in the City of Houston. There’s no right to a skybridge over public ROW. This isn’t a building line or other restriction on Dr. Mann’s property. We are talking about a use of property (the ROW) in the public domain.

And there is no real public use excuse to prevent this bridge from being built. It doesn't impede the road in any way, nor have any negative effect on it or traffic. The city doesn't really have a justification for impeding its construction.

1 hour ago, editor said:

People in Houston moan about the heat.  It's not that bad, even with the humidity.

Maybe if you live in Houston and are used to it. For people visiting from up north? Is a whole different story. I understand that and I'm from a place with humidity just as bad as, if not worse than, Houston. Yes, people traveling to an eye clinic are probably not going to care to walk outside in the humidity just to get to their doctor's appointment. As others have brought up, this area doesn't really have a hopping street life anyway, and isn't the best of neighborhoods. Nothing of value is lost by building a skybridge here. This isn't the Peachtree Center in Downtown Atlanta.

12 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

I understand that it makes sense from their perspective. Skybridges always make sense from the perspective of the people building them, otherwise they wouldn't spend the money to build them. What I care about is the neighborhood. Do you want the Museum District to fill up with medical buildings and skybridges? Even one skybridge is too many. And if we were to make a law banning skybridges in certain areas (perhaps TOD areas), either stuff like this would go elsewhere, or else Dr. Mann with his deep resources would figure out another way to get his patients in safely, perhaps by putting the hotel on the same block as the clinic.

The developer's interest in "the neighborhood" will always be second to their interest in their own development and potential clientele. It makes no sense to try to limit skybridges. Why? To what end? The very idea completely flies in the face of the laissez-faire approach to development that made Houston the city it is. This development will benefit the city ultimately; no point in attacking it over a skybridge of all things.

4 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Skybridges don't just rob the street of pedestrians. They create a psychological sense that the street is a second-class location while the glass-enclosed bridges above the street are the first-class location. They rob the street of dignity, and great streets the world over seldom have them. They are characteristic of second-tier cities where the public sphere is weak and the private sphere is overly powerful, and people don't want to walk on the street because it is thought to be a gross and scary place full of homeless.

I can't take too seriously that there is a risk of eyecare patients getting run over if they don't have a skybridge to get them across the street. How did they get to the hotel in the first place? If you can drive, you can cross a street. If somebody drove you, they can walk you across the street.

Why would you ask people to walk across a busy street, with traffic, when you can just have them walk in an air conditioned sky bridge? This is all part of one development, and the developers have a vested interest in keeping those who visit inside the development. They don't care about the street.

5 hours ago, HOUCAJUN said:

Whose fault is this?

Hard to say. Despite being the fourth largest city in the country, the general prevailing attitude among the scions of business and powers that be seems to be that Houston gets no tourists. This was pretty much the all but stated reason why Houston, despite being home to NASA, got passed over for exhibiting any of the retired space shuttles, despite a prolonged bidding process. Said the rat weasel and former NASA head Charles Bolden:

Quote

This was a very difficult decision, but one that was made with the American public in mind. In the end, these choices provide the greatest number of people with the best opportunity to share in the history and accomplishments of NASA s remarkable Space Shuttle Program. These facilities we've chosen have a noteworthy legacy of preserving space artifacts and providing outstanding access to U.S. and international visitors.

Houston gets no tourists, so Houston gets no shuttle. Houston doesn't get hotels either.

4 hours ago, Fortune said:

Haw many vacancies are there in this development? 

What @iah77 said. Its been a revolving carousel of closures.

7 hours ago, LBC2HTX said:

This area desperately needs a casual cafe. This will do well. 

This area desperately needs tenants in general. I'm kind of taken back by how many places have come and gone from here.

On 6/8/2022 at 4:12 PM, bobruss said:

The jails could probably be moved and with property values going up that might be in the back of the mind of county fathers anyway.

20 hours ago, Nate99 said:

Seems to me if you moved the jails, you would get a massive pop in value for everything on the north side of downtown and accelerate interest north of the bayou up toward St Arnolds/Warehouse District.

There has has been exactly zero talk about moving the jails or courthouses. This is true despite the fact that the courthouse buildings are badly designed and heavily susceptible to flooding. County offices are now spread around multiple buildings, across multiple blocks along the bayou's south bank, while the jails, sheriff's office, and prisoner intake take up the north bank. This area isn't going to see any explosive growth because all of the best land is tied up in institutional uses. Ironically the East River site would have probably been perfect to build an entire new civic center for this purpose due to its large size and central location next to downtown. The county could have even worked with the city to build a new Public Safety complex and Police HQ, since the city is looking to move HPDHQ, Central Precinct, and city courts anyway. Instead, the city pursued the old post office (the one that got redeveloped) and didn't get it.

Now, I don't know where the county or city would move since everything else is developed. Buy up an existing industrial area nobody would miss? That warehouse area between Spur 5, Gulf Freeway, and the railroad tracks? I got nothing.

11 hours ago, Amlaham said:

Once the conversion of 1801 Smith to residential units (372) finishes, it will be the 5th largest residential building! Which would ultimately push this building out of the top 10. 

Wait, they're converting that? When was that announced?

On 6/3/2022 at 2:51 PM, mfastx said:

Let me guess.. gonna be replaced with a fresh parking lot. Smh. 

It will probably stay clear until they get the go-ahead to proceed with the actual freeway project.

2 hours ago, rechlin said:

If the widening or creation of a freeway makes people more comfortable with moving farther out, that means they will be driving more miles, using more freeway capacity, than they would otherwise have.  That is induced demand.  The danger here is that it encourages sprawl, which is the opposite of what we want in a modern city.  As you acknowledge, I wasn't using that as a reason to oppose this project, because I don't think induced demand is a major factor with this particular project, but it is still a real thing that we should be aware of.

A whole lot of factors determine where somebody lives. It usually has more to do with things like affordability and amenities. And, of course, how close they are to their work. I'm not sure how many people, for instance, want to live all the way in Conroe or Huntsville to commute to downtown Houston, no matter how many lanes 45 has. Houston sprawls because land is plentiful and cheap, thus there is no incentive to crowd into existing neighborhoods, even though there are no traditional limits to development in most neighborhoods, like zoning. As long as Houston continues to grow, it will continue to sprawl outward. What differentiates Houston from other cities in America is that it is both sprawling and densifying, with visible signs of denser development inside the loop. But we are far beyond the whole "freeways encourage sprawl" idea. The freeways, and sprawl, are already here. More than a million people are expected to move west of Houston within the next decade. That was going to happen whether 1-10 and the Northwest Freeway were rebuilt or not. But now they are actually able to handle that growth. Induced demand is a chicken or the egg argument; what comes first, the expanding development or the freeway? Suburbs aren't a uniquely American phenomenon and poorer cities in the third world that lack extensive freeway networks can be pretty sprawling. Sprawl is a factor of radical human growth.

21 hours ago, Ross said:

Wow, your surfeit of personal attacks is disgusting.

Were was the personal attack? Did I insult the man's mother? At worst, I did what Samagon claims to do; stated my opinions. Not sure how I could personally attack someone I don't know and have never met.

21 hours ago, Ross said:

Must suck to be at a party with you telling everyone their opinions don't matter.

The fact of the matter is, most opinions don't matter in most situations. Yes, that includes mine. And when opinions cross the line into assertions, well, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. An opinion is only objectively useful if its informed; as in, based on factual evidence. Otherwise its of no use to anyone but the person asserting it.

22 hours ago, Ross said:

Nothing you've written advances the conversation at all, since all you do is tell people how much they suck.

If all you've gleaned from everything I've ever wrote in this thread is that I tell people "how much they suck", then you have not read anything I've actually wrote very stringently. Its not even a surface level reading, its just off base.

22 hours ago, Ross said:

So, essentially, why don't you just be quiet and let the adults keep talking?

Why do all you guys feel the need to be petulant and patronizing? For all you know, I'm older than you. Are you Samagon's spouse or something? Is there any particular reason you feel the need to white knight for him? He or she seems perfectly capable of speaking for themself.

6 hours ago, rechlin said:

Induced demand

You know, and this isn't directed at you specifically @rechlin but I feel the need to go on a tangent here, I hate the term induced demand. Like the freeway is magically making people drive more or conjuring cars out of thin air. Its not induced demand, its existing demand that's finally being met. Contrary to the theory of induced demand, cars don't just conjure themselves out of thin air to use new or improved roadways, won't just disappear if you get rid of it (yes, some people actually argue this). The cars always existed. They just took alternate routes that were probably longer routes to their destination. This newer route is shorter and more direct to where they want to go, so people take the newer route, because "the shortest way between two points is a straight line". These may even be people who took the old highway (if the improved route already existed) in the past, stopped because it took too long and started taking other highways, and now are returning hoping the new roadway will be "faster". Its not induced demand, its latent demand. People already drive everywhere in Houston, so the new I-45 will not make them drive more. And even if it did, even if induced demand was a thing, so what. Freeways are literally the only form of transportation that people criticized for being used according to its purpose. More people are using a newly widened freeway? Good! Its doing its job. If a freeway was expanded and traffic counts actually dropped off a cliff afterward, we would call that highway a boondoggle and say it was unnecessary. The entire concept behind induced demand is flawed. We want people to use the infrastructure we build. What urban planners should be doing is trying to figure out why just building a light rail network or bus network doesn't automatically "induce" people to ride them, causing many of America's metro systems to run into the red and risk bankrupting themselves.

11 hours ago, samagon said:

if you can't see how that post is directly relevant to what that poster said, I really don't know what to say, maybe read it again?

It wasn't relevant. It had nothing at all to do with what was being discussed regarding government bureaucracy and how long this project was taking to manifest, which was actually an interesting discussion. Many of your statements aren't relevant, in fact. Mostly they are retreading old arguments and statements that have already been trodden to death in this thread, or dis-proven by relevant information since provided.

11 hours ago, samagon said:

at the end of the day, you have your opinion on my response linked above, and I will respect you by placing as much value on your opinion as you place on mine. 

Opinions are like anuses: everybody's got'em. Yours ain't special and isn't worthy of any special deference or consideration. Opinions can be weighed like everything else. You having an opinion is not an excuse to be factually wrong or to wave it around in people's faces ad nauseum.

13 hours ago, samagon said:

ask @Amlaham?

he's who I originally was responding to on this page, then you started questioning my moral fiber. I again diverted to what I was originally responding to, so maybe you can read my responses in context, as a response to his comments, then you'll understand what the point of the statement was? or you can keep diverting to your opinion of my reason for responding?

My reading comprehension is fine thank you. Your response brought nothing to the conversation, added nothing to the conversation, and didn't move the conversation forward. It wasn't even cogent with what was being discussed. If your comment had been removed, nothing would have been lost in this thread. It served no purpose to anyone but yourself.

5 hours ago, Ross said:

Once again, you attack people for their opinions.

I'm not attacking you for your opinions. I'm pointing out that your opinions don't mean anything because they have nothing to support them. If you don't want people questioning your opinions, don't express them.

5 hours ago, Ross said:

There is no requirement that I back up my opinions

And there is no requirement that I can't call you out for making unsubstantiated claims. Fun fact: opinions can be wrong. If there is factual information disproving your opinion, then I have every right to call out your opinion as wrong.

5 hours ago, Ross said:

I do not think the cap parks will ever be built, because I do not think there will be money to build them, regardless of what TxDOT says.

TxDOT aren't building the cap parks. This has been explained multiple times in this thread. The physical caps over the highways ARE being built. They are part of the project plan now. So those are a given, assuming this project still happens at all. The parks will be built by other public entities, non-profits, private groups, or (more than likely) some combination of the above. Those groups will find the money to do so. Multiple entities (the city, TIRZ, etc.) have already committed to doing something with the caps.

5 hours ago, Ross said:

I also think that taking people's property for a project like this is a bad thing. It should be built within the current boundaries of existing roads. I also felt that way about the Katy expansion.

Well that is well and truly your opinion, but you don't really explain why you feel that way. Your position is untenable; some things just can't be done in the existing right of way.

5 hours ago, Ross said:

I'm in my 60's. There is every likelihood I'll be dead before this project is completed. That's not temporary, since TxDot hasn't shown any great ability to finish projects in a timely manner.

While regrettable, that's life. A lot of people died before the Big Dig was finished. It is what it is. Just because some people will die before the project's completion is not a reason to stop the project.

3 hours ago, Ross said:

I don't see losing the Pierce Elevated as a plus, nor do I think sinking the freeways is a plus.

Okay, but, you don't really explain why you feel that way, so that's neither here nor there.

3 hours ago, Ross said:

I do not believe the cap parks will ever be built,

Based on what? Caps will for sure be built if the project ever finally gets underway, as they are now officially part of the project, so something will be built on them eventually. Plenty of entities are invested in those caps being developed into some mix of parkland and development. So this statement means less than nothing.

3 hours ago, Ross said:

I do not believe that the displaced people will be fully compensated for losing their homes they've had for decades.

Except that is exactly what TxDOT have explained they are going to do. Your beliefs aren't fact and can be dismissed for being counterfactual.

3 hours ago, Ross said:

I do not think that this project will make Houston a better place to live, given the probable 2 or 3 decades of disruption it will create.

Two to three decades is merely a timeline you pulled out of your butt. And any construction disruption is temporary no matter how long it lasts. But the positives it will bring to the city are permanent.

3 hours ago, Ross said:

but the rerouting of freeways to the East of Downtown is an utter waste of resources with no real benefit.

Says you, based on nothing.

I got to say, I'm okay with the garage if only for the obvious vengeance aspect. Maybe the community will think twice about opposing variances in the future. It never stops a project like this to oppose variances, just makes it taller and more obnoxious.

Well, its either a parking garage or vacant lot. At least the garage is something.

On 5/17/2022 at 3:52 PM, samagon said:

all so there's an easier commute for someone from the woodlands, or so some xurb community might be able to attract development that will bring in more tax dollars to their little hamlets?

I like how you like to couch this as some kind of zero sum game. The people from the Woodlands win, therefore you lose. You completely ignore all the actual benefits this project gives to your own neighborhood, like the cap parks and sunken freeways, plus better street access for surrounding communities, because it might benefit the rich white guy in the suburbs.

Its amazing how you've enunciated how your own opposition is based on how this disadvantages you specifically (and others in your neighborhood, as an aside), yet you, in the same breath, make it clear that you couldn't care less how this project actually benefits others in the region, and in fact you've shown nothing but spite towards them, and yet you expect anyone else, inside or outside this thread, to actually give a damn about your position? Does that make sense to you?

And yes, I did find what you said disingenuous. We've already been over how the people directly affected by this project will be compensated. You continuing to throw this pity party for the "poor little poor people who will lose their houses" benefits no one but you and your ego. It adds nothing to the thread, nor to the greater conversation. None of those people will read your comment and pat you on the back for your pity, nobody in charge of this project will see your comment nor care about it. And what's more, nobody affected by this asked for your pity. You don't speak for them. Heck, some of them might actually WANT TO SELL their property to the state and come out if it with a fistful of cash, and you definitely don't speak for them.

So yes, stop with the disingenuous statements that are only designed to make you seem like a better person for feigning to care. Your flippant attitude comes through your words and belies your actual lack of dog in this fight. I mean seriously, what was the point of this statement:

On 5/11/2022 at 8:00 AM, samagon said:

mean, let's not dramatize some dying futurists dreams to see i45 relocated from the west side of town to the east being some impactful reason that this project should move forward with alacrity. if it takes 60 more years for this to complete in a manner that has less impact on the lives of those living near it, and none of us get to see it completed, I'll have it in my will that someone locate and play the worlds smallest violin in the honor of all of us that never got to see this 'dream' come to life.

What does this add to the conversation? Not a doggone thing.

On 5/15/2022 at 8:56 AM, arche_757 said:

Right.  They still don’t have a harsh parking podium.

This building is on relatively condensed plot of land, no room to build a separate parking garage.

23 hours ago, samagon said:

if I were trying to impress you, it seems to me that the easiest way to accomplish that would be to suggest bulldozing more to add more freeways, but you believe what you want.

Now we raise straw men to knock down, bringing up things I never once suggested. You're slipping, my friend.