Jump to content

004n063

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    987

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 004n063

  1. 004n063
    Huh. Noticing some crossover with the MKT development (minus the latter's awesome trailfront space)
  2. 004n063
    Looks like they've started work on the adjacent lot. Also, looks like they are keeping the old-fashioned-train-platform vibe on the south side.
  3. 004n063
    It doesn't destroy it, but it makes it harder and likely less effective, since it creates an additional point of conflict. But honestly, while the garage started the conversation, it is not (as I've said several times) a major issue for me. The part that I am legitimately disappointed in (or will be, if the renderings hold true) is the fact that there doesn't appear to be anything better than a deadly painted bicycle gutter in the renderings (Fannin and/or San Jacinto would be a great olace for another cycle track like the one on Bagby, or at least a protected lane like on Austin; those two streets are absolutely terrifying to bike on), and that there doesn't appear to be any intention to pedestrianize Eagle (from San Jacinto to Main is all you'd need). Neither of those would significantly degrade access for people who choose to drive, but they'd hugely improve the experience for people on foot or bike. And yes, I realize that those would not ultimately be up to the developer, but at least the renderings could have been bolder. They did, after all, draw in two painted bicycle abbatoirs (even a contraflow one! .) on Fannin, where currently there is nothing. Look, here's my most selfish perspective: As someone who lives a bit far from this location for it to really be a casual walk (not in this heat, anyway), but much too close to justify driving, bike is my only logical option. But with the current infrastructure in the area, it just isn't safe. And nothing that I've seen indicates any commitment to changing that. And that's fine; they don't need to serve me. But I also don't need to be impressed. They've taken an absolute abomination of surface parking and are turning most of it into productive, moderately attractive space. It looks like, at worst, it'll be a bit like Downtown, which is to say, a hell of a lot better than the Medical Center or (god forbid) Uptown. So I can thank my lucky stars for that. I just don't see anything particularly innovative about it. Anyway, I think I've said all I have to say about this and feel a little bad for anyone who has been scrolling through this thread hoping for updates, so I'm going to disengage. I understand your points, and they're not wrong. I just think the gamble would have been worthwhile.
  4. 004n063
    I would just add: 1) Not building a gargantuan parking garage doesn't make it impossible to drive. Just potentially less convenient. Kind of like how building a gargantuan parking garage doesn't make it impossible to walk, bike, or take the rail - but it does seem likely to make (or at least leave) the first two options fairly unpleasant and unsafe. 2) I would argue (with Ross, not you), that no development - and certainly not one that's just a handful of commercial properties - serves the whole Houston metro area. But when you build around the idea of suburban access, you tend to preserve the lack of local access, since car traffic is the main enemy of pedestrian and especially bicycle viability. In other words, there's an element of kicking the can further on down the road.
  5. 004n063
    Sorry for being very late to this party, but what is the latest on the 58-floor tower? Is that still in the works?
  6. 004n063
    You're kinda proving all of our points. The large garage and minimal pedestrian facilities point to a suburban teleology. They want to appeal to people from far away, not people who live within a short walk, bike ride, or transit ride. There are nearly 100,000 people living within fifteen non-driving minutes of this location. Plenty to sustain a vibrant center without needing to assume that everyone will drive. My point is not that there is no demand for parking. It's that catering to said demand -particularly while continuing to ignore the universal demand for walkability - is not innovative.
  7. 004n063
    God, an Allen's Landing bridge would be amazing
  8. 004n063
    I talked to a lot of folks from Metro about this at the University Corridor project meeting at HCC on Wednesday. If realized, that project will help a lot in and of itself, but they told me that one of the additional things they're trying to push for is better pedestrian access to the line from the abutting neighborhoods. Right now, there are wide, barrier-protected lanes on Hillcroft from Bellaire to High Star/Westward, and then a 10-ft multiuse sidewalk on Westward and barrier-protected bus+bike lanes on High Star, but that's it. It's frustrating, because the need in that area is arguably higher than anywhere else in the city, and while the "widewalk" on Westward is nice, the lanes on Hillcroft have a similar missing-teeth vibe as those on Lawndale. It would have been more beneficial, I think, to 1) create a (much) more extensive network of Austin St.-style lanes that are a lot quicker and easier to build, and 2) start working on closing off some of the parking lot entrances so that the protection isn't so broken up. Right hooks are still a serious risk to anyone riding in those lanes. Of course, I don't think there's any place in Houston that comes close to the 59/Westpark intersection in terms of desperately needed pedestrian facilities. Dozens of kids walk across that nightmare every day during the school year, and hundreds of adult laborers do the same. Sorry, you've got me on my soapbox. I teach on that stretch of Westpark, so it's a touchy subject for me.
  9. 004n063
    19th Street but with better sidewalks
  10. 004n063
    You're not exactly wrong - in order for places like this to serve the greater Houston area, they need to accommodate drivers. And projects of this scale do need to think beyond the local community, because they're taking on such a gargantuan amount of debt all at once. But I do wish the city itself would do more to make locals-oriented development feasible. It's easy to assume that people won't walk, bike, or take the rail becaus they're "too lazy, stubborn, or stupid," but we've built most of our streets in a way that is aggressively hostile toward pedestrians and bicyclists, and our rail network really only takes a fraction of our population to a fraction of the places they want to go. No individual developer is capable of or responsible for fixing this, but every one who doesn't is ultimately contributing to the perpetuation of the problem. And given the ethos the Ion District seems to want to be identified with, it would have been cool to see them lean into a "yeah, you're not going to want to drive here" attitude. The two current projects that I think do a decent job of exemplifying both sides of this are the Caroline Street redesign (as an example of a standard the city could be pursuing for street design) and the Urban Genesis project in the Warehouse District (as an example of a construction approach that doesn't appear to be prioritizing car storage or throughput). Since the Ion is located at pretty much the exact middle of the busiest (but still under capacity) rail line, one of the busiest bus stations, and the central and key transfer point of the probable University BRT line; and since its north-south streets have huge ROWs (making an extended pedestrian realm and a high-comfort bike lane very feasible) and its cross streets have extremely limited traffic (making pedestrianization very feasible), the opportunity for transformatively human-oriented development here was enormous. This is still going to be transformative for the area. It just could have been better, that's all. (And honestly, I really don't care about the garage, personally - it just exemplifies the kind of "stuck" thinking we're talking about.)
  11. 004n063
    Three points to quibble with: 1) Walkable districts are what makes rail work. 2) I'm not as bearish on light rail or BRT as you seem to be. (Though I think the Silver line had obvious problems from the start, and then engineered in a few more.) Being right at the intersection of the red line and the university line gives this area a huge potential pedestrian catchment. 3) These are streets, not roads. The changes I suggested would reduce car throughput, but that doesn't inherently mean reduced overall capacity. If they are designed to encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and transit traffic, then their capacity as wealth-generators for the community (a metric I personally value more than their capacity to get cars past the area) will be enhanced, not degraded. This is not just postulation, by the way - we see this borne out literally everywhere that pedestrianization, road diets, complete streets, etc. are done, including here with Bagby (and, as I'm sure we'll see over the next few years, Caroline and Cleburne). What we haven't seen is any evidence that five-lane stroads even improve car traffic flow as compared with complete streets, nor (obviously) any evidence that such improvements, were they to exist, would provide any meaningful benefits to business owners on that street or the people of that community (apart from the trauma surgeons, morticians, etc.). Now, again: this project is a big improvement over the wasteland the area has been for so long. And a big parking garage at the northern edge doesn't make it a bad project - in fact, it still looks to me like it's on track to be one of the city's best. It just doesn't strike me as innovative in any way that I can think of. In fact, it seems to be mostly ignoring the last fifty or so years' worth of global innovation in urban design. Of course, you're perfectly right that most of that is not in the developers' hands. That's why, despite my critique, I don't really blame them. I just find a bit of glum irony in its being called an "Innovation District" when its design reflects neither innovation nor...uh...districtyness. But still, to borrow a phrase from Clueless: "Not a total Betty, but a vast improvement!"
  12. 004n063
    Soooo I just went to check this out, and...not quite. The curved block from Crawford@Dallas to La Branch@Lamar is still blocked off. Not only that, but there are now construction vehicles blocking the entire block of the Polk lane from La Branch to Crawford. If you are heading west, it's not so bad - just one block of mixed traffic. But coming back east, you basically have to dismount at La Branch, cross Lamar and then La Branch as a pedestrian, and then ride park paths to Crawford. It's not a long detour, but it's an annoying one.
  13. 004n063
    There's still the next block over, which would be an even better location for a grocery store, in my opinion (especially if it either buried the parking like the Midtown Whole Foods, or else "hid" it behind..). But I definitely agree that that part of Montrose needs a grocery store. It's just a little too far from each of the three closest ones.
  14. 004n063
    Glad to see that something may happen there after all!
  15. 004n063
    You are right in that assuming all of the tenants and users will drive is, indeed, "present thinking". Present thinking is exactly why we are in the disasterously car-centric mess we are in. Hence the critique.
  16. 004n063
    @monarchI appreciate your optimism. There's no point being a total debbie downer about this, and a parking garage won't make or break this project. But there's also no guarantee that the surface parking lots to the south, west, and southeast will actually be developed into anything. And while the renders don't preclude pedestrianization or non-death-trap bike lanes, they certainly don't guarantee them. Again, I don't think a parking garage will ruin what this could be, but Brooklyn is right to say that it's not forward-thinking. Parking garages are better than surface parking lots and golf courses, but that only gives them the distinction of being the third worst use of urban land. Show me a project that shrinks Fannin and San Jacinto down to two car lanes each; show me a plan to make Eagle fully pedestrianized from San Jacinto to Main, show me continuous (i.e. dipless) sidewalks and well-marked two-meter cycle tracks on both sides, pedestrian signal prioritization, protected intersections, etc., and I'll start to get excited. It seems very likely that this project will improve the livability of the area to some degree. But if you're going to call something an "Innovation District," then that innovation should be apparent in the urban planning/infrastructure side, too. I haven't seen much evidence of that here.
×
×
  • Create New...