ig2ba

cloud713 said:

 

are you proposing they bury just the Pierce Elevated, or the entire stretch of 45 around downtown? if its only the pierce elevated, it wont make much of a difference. 

if they got rid of i45 around downtown all together and rerouted the 45 traffic along 59 and 10, (expanding the 59 and 10 ROW a little of course) and then buried the stretch of 59 thats not already submerged, past the Toyota Center, it could skip the GRB and use the current elevated road for that portion since the GRB creates a barrier of its own, be submerged again past GRB, before coming back up around Commerce street. then the whole 45 corridor could be developed once thats removed, blending downtown with the surrounding areas, and some parks built over 59 on the north and south sides of GRB to help connect downtown and the East End.

Slick Vik said:

 

I'm ok with that idea

So what's the plan for the resulting traffic? Before the intersection of I-10 and I-45 (north, west of downtown), there are a combined nine lanes of traffic. Through downtown, those two freeways carry only 6 lanes of traffic. It's already very lane-imbalanced, and anyone who travels EB on I-10 into downtown knows that it can come to a standstill at almost any time of day, including the weekends.

And you are proposing to make it much worse? Instead of 9 down to 6 lanes, you think that 9 down to 3 lanes is really a workable solution?

I think most drivers would sooner drive past downtown smelling like the Ship Channel and every available surface spray-painted with gangland graffiti than to contend with the unbelievable cluster of hourS-long traffic jams that this configuration would cause.

Another point I haven't seen mentioned here is that if pierce was taken down the values of the property that is under the bridge would be high, as the barrier between midtown and downtown would no longer be there. This could have a residual effect.

One shouldn't assume that all we have to do is a standard cut and cover tunnel and then we'll be able to build 30+ story buildings over the submerged freeway. In all likelihood, unless we don't mind if the project gets extraordinarily expensive, you probably couldn't put anything but a park there - no buildings.

So it doesn't really matter if the property values would soar, since no one could extract that much value from it (I'm speaking monetarily - I would love another park in downtown).

Sorry if this is somewhat or fully redundant, but here is a list of amenities being considered for the new building:

• Seating areas / benches        
• Outdoor dining tables        
• Covered patio / casual seating        
• Green space & landscaping        
• Recreation & exercise facilities        
• Celebration event facilities (crawfish boil, BBQ )        
• Bicycle racks / storage        
• Wireless / power access        
• Smoking facilities
• Water features
• Community herb garden
• Sculptures
• Observation deck
• Ambient music / nature sounds
• Outdoor digital display
• Dry cleaning
• Computer lounge
• General store / pantry
• Motherhood rooms
• Hair salon / barber
• Massage rooms
• Shoe repair / shoe shine / tailor
• Sitting / reading quiet room
• On-site credit union
• Bookstore
• On-site bank
• After-hours dining / service
• Pharmacy
• Take-home / frozen meals
• Primary care / family practice physician
• Garage carwash / tire repair
• Optometrist
• Employee concierge (general errands)
• PC / phone repair
• Pack and ship

I have no idea on which ones will be accessible to the public.

It just occurred to me... I wonder how many Exxon Employees are going to try to jump ship and work for Chevron?   I've been talking to a huge number of Exxon employees and plenty of them are not happy about going to the campus.

I've heard the same. One guy wants to stay inside the Loop because of his wife's work (living in the northern burbs wouldn't be practical), but is none too pleased about the move. And they have kids. We shouldn't assume that having a family means you automatically want to move to the burbs and that of course The Woodlands is the most desirable suburb.

Is it just me, or does the western half after the recessed area look taller than the eastern part?

Good catch. I really wonder what that could be. I'd like to see a rendering of the north side of the building.

Once the employees have kids, the vast majority of them move to the suburbs where there's room to play, better schools, and better activities. Those of us who live in the City are the exception.

This will all be a wonderful experiment: which company will attract more employees - the one based in the suburbs or the one in downtown?

Exxon is certainly very convenient for people on the north side but nearly impossible (long-term) for people living in Katy, Sugar Land, Pearland, or Clear Lake. Chevron is very convenient for only some workers, but is doable for almost any employee on any side of town, especially when all of the HOV lanes and express buses head towards downtown (and not towards some secluded forest location).

I can tell you this for sure - there will be employees switching from Exxon to Chevron and Chevron to Exxon (and similar companies). In fact, it's happening already.

was'nt this the same thing exxon did where they deny that they would be moving people for almost a years ?

I'm not sure about all of the reasons for not moving from Bellaire. The two big groups out there either have a reason for remaining separate (the auditing group) or no compelling reason to collaborate with others downtown (the pipeline company). It could go either way.

However, the Briarpark facility has a lot of research laboratories, most of which you would not want anywhere near your downtown building. I could see them finding another new surburban low-rise facility before they ever go downtown. In either case, that's only a couple hundred employees anyway.

Other things that the building will have (that were not described in the original release):

• Will be a LEED Platinum Building
• "around 4,000 new offices"
• 4 levels of common areas
• Outdoor green space
• Apparently, another skywalk across Bell right next to Louisiana.

The rendering shows it to be SIGNIFICANTLY taller than the 1400 Smith building, which is also 50 stories (sorta 51 stories), and that one is 691 feet. I'm curious if it will actually be a lot taller or it is just the drawing which is incorrect.

excellent idea, and thinking about this more, we would really only need a wall from southwest Houston around to northeast Houston, it could be Houston's very own Maginot Line!

Place defensive turrets at regular intervals at the top of this wall and you've got yourself a deal.

You guys are really missing the big picture. The most important reason for building this 80-mile fortress around Houston is when the Rage Virus hits. All indications are that it will start in the UK, so as long as you're an Inner Looper, you'll be safe.

Just heard that there were reports of falling glass from this building. Today maybe? Apparently glass has fallen from this building several times before in the last few months.

I was walking by there today before I heard this info and did several glass panes missing.

Is it demolition activities that caused this? Or the wind? I could believe the wind was at least a factor because I also saw small-ish tree a 2 blocks away that was snapped at the trunk.

Be careful out there.

In the interests of more cyclists and pedestrians, the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) has put out a call for planning studies. More information can be found at www.h-gac.com/go/pedbike.

It's all about "connectivity".

There are a lot of buzzwords in the transportation and planning world, and connectivity is one of them thrown around often, sometimes with meaning and sometimes not.

But it's a pretty damn important concept for bikes. I mean, if the sidewalk ends, and you are an able-bodied pedestrian, you just ... keep walking. But on a bike, the barricades, and steep slopes with glass and other sharp debris on the sides convince me not to take this path again by bike.

And I think that's all anyone here is asking for from the 288 redevelopment -- the preservation of some space for, or some other forethought put into, the addition of rail in the future.

No one's saying that 288 is packed as badly as other corridors which deserve rail. But what you have with 288 right now is a wide expanse of nearly virgin ground. It's important not to waste that opportunity by blacktopping the entire thing and thinking that's a long term solution. Most of the expense in building a rail system comes from land acquisition. This is a chance to do a little planning now so that in the future taxpayers won't have to cough up nearly as much money to build rail when the time comes.

FWIW, the train lines (two tracks) that run down the middle of I-90/I-94 in Chicago take up 43 feet of the right-of-way. Does anyone know how wide the 288 expansion would be? Could 43 feet be set aside for rail use in the future?

A July 1999 article on texasfreeway.com says it's 100 ft wide.

It looks like it could be more like 115 ft. inside the loop. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29....mp;t=h&z=19) Outside the loop, it looks like it's right at 100 ft. (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29....mp;t=h&z=19).

However, there is existing ROW outside the mainlanes, both inside and outside the loop. Outside the loop, it's level ground and just grass. Inside the loop, it's primarily earthen slopes. If Westpark Tollway was done in a 50 ft. right of way, I would think that we could have a 2x2 lane toll road and still have room for rail here. If we are serious (and by that I mean willing to spend the money at some point in the future) about having rail, AND a toll road, AND maybe adding a fifth mainlane in each direction, it could probably be done in the style of the North Central Expressway (U.S. 75) in Dallas.

But where would this train go once it gets to the 288/59 interchange? Elevated? Or underground all the way to the proposed Intermodal Center? That's almost 3 miles! Could that cost be justified? Even by 2040? I wouldn't think so. If it wouldn't go to the Intermodal Center, where would it end up? It would need some place to drop all of these commuters that would connect them to light rail or buses.

Another issue is at the interchange with I-610. Is there room here for toll lanes AND rail?

TxDOT is always a decade or two behind in this thing. I am surprised Ms. Gbur still has a job. But, in all fairness, Houston grows and grows and grows and we simply can't keep up with the madness. It is much better than the opposite where cities like Philly dropped from 2 mil to 1 mil in several decades. Guess we'll just get on the freeway for better or for worse.

It's not that TxDOT didn't plan for congestion at the West Loop. They planned to expand the West Loop back in 1991 - approaching two decades ago. Unfortunately, political opposition (one example: Sheila Jackson Lee) made this untenable at the time. TxDOT recognized the need for a rebuild but could only reconstruct the West Loop as a no-capacity-added project (in order to avoid a more lengthy and another politically-charged debate and approval process). This is why the West Loop still narrows to 8 lanes for about a mile. Cleverly, though, TxDOT appears to have striped for only 8 lanes, but built enough pavement in many places for more lanes. My guess is that they'll try to restripe for 10 lanes in most spots within a few years if/when the traffic becomes unbearable.