HouTXRanger

Yeah. Tear the thing down and be done with it. Use lots of the space for parks and service buildings (affordable housing?) but sell the rest if they want. Let the city fill back in.

Just now, j_cuevas713 said:

Yeah I think that's stupid. Anything that is a main corridor should automatically fall in within that criteria. 

Quick fix: allow TOD to apply along the route of the most used bus routes in the city. Don't see it happening though. Bus stops can be moved way too easily, and that bus route (56) cuts through Montrose . . . not sure if they'd go for it, much less the folks in River Oaks for route 82.

27 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I'm so lost as to what a TOD street even is in this city. Is that something that has to be approved first? 

Currently, a Primary TOD street is determined by objective criteria in the TOD manual, and applies within a certain range around a rail or BRT stop, depending on specifics. They automatically apply I assume as soon as the rail/BRT station is in operation. Secondary TOD streets are in a ring outside that, but they do not apply automatically, the majority of landholders on a secondary street must apply/approve for it to qualify.

1 hour ago, tangledwoods said:

 

I'm sorry but there is nothing remarkable or worth preserving about an old movie theater that has been converted into a church.  Now, I will certainly admit that a 7 story self storage building on 11th street in the heights is a rather bold "only in Houston" maneuver.... at least the property will now contribute to the local tax base.  I am curious how they will manage with the new permitting requirements for stormwater detention.

With all due respect, it's attitudes like this which end up completely erasing historic neighborhoods in cities like Houston. There's so much of the city that's been bulldozed for no reason other than "it's not remarkable," replaced with something that absolutely contributes less to the community than whatever was there before. We'd be so much better off if we had kept more 1936 movie theaters instead of paving another parking lot. This individual building might not be remarkable anymore (though I disagree), it used to be part of an entire community of similar structures, and only now that it's all that's left from the period it looks out of place.

11 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Wow, just wow. I was just in Memphis and that city knows how to save its history. I'm embarrassed. And this is all the wiggle room that is needed for those other historic buildings on 11th to see the same fate. Literally makes me sick to my stomach. When is this city going to do something about its Preservation Ordinance? 

Well, it's currently being sued for trying to enforce what little ordinance it has . . . so we'll have to wait for that to pan out first 😁

On 12/9/2008 at 11:32 AM, heights_yankee said:

. . . hate to admit it, but i'd rather see it be almost anything but a church . . .

On 12/10/2008 at 9:08 AM, tanith27 said:

. . . this building needs to become something else . . .

That's a "be caureful what you wish for" 12 years in the making. For a self storage of all places . . .

Whatever ends up there, I just hope it doesn't end up as boring as Camden Midtown or the Travis . . . that's almost the worst case scenario for a redevelopment there.

It looks much better when it's broken up with that line of gray in between.

2 hours ago, Avossos said:

so.... the “original part” has brown granite, and the “new” part has rough gray granite?

 

I think that feels a little too forced... I’d of preferred the brown all the way around. Just an opinion.

I'm not sure honestly . . . the white goes fantastically with the art deco decorations on the northeast side, it would look way worse with brown. Was it really brown originally?

1 hour ago, august948 said:

Are they planning to and/or did they consider renaming Tuam street, also?  Below is the entry from wikipedia.  Apparently, Tuam was named at the same time in 1892 for Dowling's place of birth in Ireland.

 

 

I hadn't heard anything about it, I would have assumed it would have happened with the name change of Emancipation. I guess it just flew under the radar.

1 hour ago, iah77 said:

Maybe because it's name was changed illegally without the consent of property owners lol. 

In the 1890s, or a few years ago?

29 minutes ago, jmitch94 said:

God I dream of making as much money as this apartment costs. I just cant imagine spending that amount while building zero equity.  

It's an entirely different world for their clientele I guess.

I was just looking out my window, and realized their penthouse must have the best views in the city, bar none right now. Skylines wherever you look.

6 minutes ago, clutchcity94 said:

Is the BRT going to be on Wheeler or Alabama?

It'll be on Wheeler to connect with the Wheeler transit center, but I expect that it'll turn north to use Alabama at some point before it crosses 288. There simply isn't enough ROW on Wheeler that far over, and even if there was, TSU pedestrianized over half of Wheeler street so they'd have to go north to Alabama at that point anyway.

edit: just realized, that would make the BRT go right in front of Yates High School. How cool would it be to go to school on a BRT?

Would this take out the homeless service place there? That really sucks . . .

26 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

It can't be too much longer! Inner Katy BRT/elevated HOV funding from HGAC is set for 2021 fiscal year. Even if two-way HOV on 45 won't be done for a decade due to NHHIP, the cost to implement BRT to IAH is relatively low. Just skip the planned red line extension station until that's finished and build the BRT stations at Greenspoint and IAH. Not much community involvement needed on where to plan these specific items. 

 

Also, maybe they'll finally close Main St to cars and they can make a cool BRT station. 

Honestly, I'm more excited that the BRT sharing stations with the green/purple lines might finally get the city to make those lanes dedicated transit instead of turn-only. Anything to improve the slog through all those lights for the train . . .

I'm assuming that pulling the renderings is a bad sign, right?

Although I'll never be able to afford it, damn is that a slick looking tower. I wonder if it'll be one of the city's "Historic" landmarks by 2100 . . .

7 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

The CBA in my opinion has always been DOA. The only people willing to entertain this idea was Rice (only because they have a guilty conscious), but with all the pull this thing is already getting, they don't need anything from this coalition because they don't need them for anything. In fact, just looking at it from a pure negotiation/political stand point. Its the coalition that needs The Ion, not the other way around, yet at the same time its the coalition trying to make all the demands. Not exactly a wise business strategy. The dynamics of the surrounding neighborhoods have been changing for awhile now, and will continue to change. If one focuses on the actual dynamics it just looks like a last ditch bid for the power brokers, and those who hold a political stranglehold on the 3rd Ward, are gradually going to lose their influence and authority because the demographics are going to shift, and they want to find a way to keep that going. I just don't see it happening.

If they approached them in a way that was an assist or offer, rather than a demand or a sense of entitlement then they probably would have gotten something a long time ago. Its not a great look to be pushy especially when this development doesn't exactly need the existing political authority to get any influence for itself, or bring in business. In fact The Ion is doing that naturally on its own.

In their meetings, they very much felt like they were approaching things from a "demand" point of view, and when people talked about how really they wanted to work with Ion not against them, it felt like a second thought. You're right in that the CBA has exactly zero leverage over the Ion, so I'm really not sure why they feel like they have such ground to stand on.

Most of the motivation from the CBA group is that they see what happens to other cities when big tech gets in to a neighborhood (incredibly high gentrification), and they genuinely fear for what's going to happen to the 3rd ward if the Ion outgrows Rice's land . . . which it will.

 

10 minutes ago, wilcal said:

Can't believe they haven't instituted a community land trust and/or done some multi-family. 

From what I heard at the Ion meeting, a land trust is already trying to get off the ground. I'm sure they need more money and buy-in though, and they're rapidly running out of time before land prices get out of their reach.

12 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

Have you seen the home prices in the 3rd between TSU and the highway? Renovated homes are already $300+.

 

I wonder how long it'll take to get a building over 5 stories in the 3rd! I would imagine BRT is planned for Alabama, so maybe corner of Alabama @ Emancipation?

All that's kept the place from exploding with townhomes is the "reputation" 3rd ward has. They're already encroaching in the northern corner . . .

The only reason prices are that high is because of proximity to downtown, the med center, and the universities, right? Well . . . imagine how quickly the place is going to explode when there's also a rapid bus to TSU/UH, 10-20 minute rapid transit connection to Wheeler (and the red line), Greenway Plaza, the Galleria (and all the other connections at the Uptown transit center). I honestly think it's going to be one of the best connected neighborhoods in the city, and I think it'll make east downtown look like nothing.

I think the effect is going to be very severe in the 3rd ward once construction on the BRT starts. It'll be 5-10 minutes away on the line, and by far the cheapest area along the entire length. It's going to be targeted heavily for new apartment/condo construction for sure.

Great points. Also like how the parking lots are tucked away on the secondary street, and wow there are even bike spots? Is this walkable places compliant? Cuz the ordinance isn't anywhere on westheimer . . . neat.

2 hours ago, iah77 said:

People actually use streets and highways.

And they don't use parks? You're missing the key component: Cars use these streets and highways because they're designed around them. I liked the change because it would have made the streets more usable for bikers and pedestrians by removing unnecessary high speed intersections. Elgin/Westheimer could have evolved into a much more pedestrian friendly corridor (which it kinda has to, since there isn't any room for more lanes so car traffic's maxxed out).

 

2 hours ago, iah77 said:

Btw, as a Houston resident and person who pays taxes

. . . I hate to burst your bubble, but I live here too and I also pay taxes. Most of us do. Thus, the Houston in Houstonarchitecture.com

 

2 hours ago, iah77 said:

why shouldn't people be allowed to use it as a cut through? You make it sound illegal.

People treat it like a on/off ramp because that is what is it. So if everywhere becomes a "neighborhood street", how exactly would you even move smoothly through Houston? Through our non-existent subway? 

I call it a neighborhood street because there are single family houses who have their driveways directly on Bagby by that intersection. It also serves as a connection between many neighborhoods in Montrose to Elgin, the whole foods, and the rail. If it weren't such a dangerous intersection, people would walk through there much more often.

But, cars aren't going away anytime soon and they also need corridors. Thing is, this bridge isn't about connecting Montrose to Midtown, or serving any of the people who actually live there. It's about funneling commuters in and out of downtown and on to 59.

That's why it's completely appropriate in my opinion to funnel commuters down just two blocks, about 200ft, to use the other two ramps onto the spur at Smith or Milam.
That's what's so silly about all this to me, and why I thought it seemed like a no-brainer. There are already two other ramps for this that are on better, wider streets, while that area desperately needs better multimodal infrastructure. 
 

Anyone attend the affordable housing talk the Ion put on tonight? There just quite wasn't enough time for me to say all I wanted . . . but, there were some great ideas and thoughts passed around.

8 hours ago, iah77 said:

 

This project would have been a disaster, amazing how fast things can pass without public input when they benefit very wealthy homeowners in a two block radius. 

 

You don't think that new park would have been more expensive to maintain than a basic overpass that survived 60 years without maintenance btw? 

Yes, I do think that, because it's true. Roads and highways are massive money sinks. Look at how many billions of dollars we spend on highway interchange redos every decade! People absolutely take for granted how expensive modern streets are.

Tons of concrete, rebar, and way, way more labor than people think. And I doubt the overpass had zero work done on it in 60 years. Even quick pothole fillings and asphalt patches cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour. Multiply that by 60 years, and that's a massive price tag considering the overpass generates zero income to cover that cost. That's not to mention all the small things it costs the city administratively, though that's small peanuts compared to the public works price tag.

Comparatively, a park costs next to nothing to build or maintain. And, removing the bridge would have made one of the most important connections between Midtown and Montrose safe and pedestrian friendly. People used to and still do treat it like a highway on/off ramp instead of a neighborhood street.

In general, I'm not a fan of a single entity buying up so many acres and building a "community" like this from scratch, because I prefer more organic "fine grain" growth patterns.

However, this seems pretty good all things considering. It's very mixed use (a no-brainer in Houston anyway), has no streets larger than two lanes, and at least at a surface level seems to prioritizes pedestrian and bike traffic. A personal highlight is how they're building a new place for the Houston Maritime Museum right on the banks, that's going to be a beautiful place to hang out if it all comes together.

If I were to be nitpicky, I wonder if there are City of Houston regs/codes that are forcing the buildings to have such large setbacks, or if that's part of the style. Since it's 5 phases, maybe we'll see the effects of changing city codes all in this one development. It would also be great to see dedicated on or off street bike paths built in, or some better love shown to the bus route that goes by there. Maybe if the area continues to densify, we'll see a BRT line or something? The development def needs better transportation options than just the highway, it's a waste this close to the city center to force everyone to drive.