livincinco

So let's extrapolate this for a second here. Eisenhower was opposed to running freeways through cities, however by the time it made it to his desk for final signature, it's clear that the system was going to run through cities and he signed it. That means one of two things - either he wasn't aware of the changes to the bill (highly unlikely) or that he knowingly accepted the change and accepted (as you have argued that his legacy was going to include running freeways through cities. That kind of makes his whole earlier opposition meaningless doesn't it? By the way, when you say "it ended up in a way you liked", that's where we have a big disconnect. As I openly mentioned earlier, I think that there's room for discussion about whether it was the right thing at the time, but they are there and unless someone has discovered a time machine and hasn't shared that fact, then we have no ability to go back in time to change that. Who likes what doesn't change the reality that we have the infrastructure that we have. That's a sunk cost - there's no going back. The more relevant question is "does it make sense to remove them now" and I can't think of any freeway that it makes sense to remove in Houston. Now you're going to go to your old standby of mentioning the 3 or 4 freeways with probably 10 miles of total road that have been removed. 10 miles in a more than 47,000 mile network doesn't even qualify as a rounding error let alone a trend. Most of the "plans" that are proposed, such as removing I-345 through Dallas get rejected because they make no sense, not because there's a "highway conspiracy".

I did here that from an LA based employee, but wasn't sure of how much credibility to put in it. Still surprised that they're expanding into other markets in that case.

Never heard Article 1 of the Constitution referred to as "a technicality" before, but very little surprises me in these conversations anymore.

You didn't quote the article that I linked to, you quoted a different article from the same publication. Eisenhower is my favorite President, but I'm not undermining him at all. I'm just explaining how the US Government works and that's not an opinion or an insult it's just a fact. The President has no ability to introduce legislation to Congress and no ability to authorize spending to support this kind of proposal. He can propose it to them, but someone in Congress has to actually introduce the legislation and it can be amended through that process. That happens to every major bill and all the President can do is sign or veto. I'm more than happy to explain any other government functions that you're unclear on.

Aren't they already competing with Whataburger in multiple markets? What's different about Houston?

We're once again off topic (shocking, I know), but I don't see any meltdown of energy companies coming. I expect that there will be a repositioning as they adapt to whatever the dominant energy source is at that point. Shell is interestingly enough projecting that oil will cease to be used as a source of energy for cars around 2070 which is well before the current projected "end of oil" scenarios and well beyond the timeframe that should concern current building trends. I expect that you'll see the predominant energy companies do the exact same thing has happened in technology. They'll stockpile cash like crazy and start buying any firms that show promise and assimilate them. They have a lock on the kind of engineering talent that is needed to execute large scale installations and quite honestly, there's no way that a wholesale energy conversion happens in the world without their involvement. I would say that IBM is a better comparison than Kodak. IBM was nimble, adapted to change and is as strong as ever while doing business in a way that has no resemblance to their original model.

It's really kind of naive to think that just because a President wants something executed that it should be executed exactly that way. There are very few major initiatives that have not been impacted by Congress, because that's the way our government is designed to work. There was absolutely political concessions made to get the bill passed. In exactly the same way that every major bill has the same concessions. I think that it's arguable whether it was the right decision, but it happened and they are there. BTW, it's nice that you reference an article that talks about the enormous amount of good that the Interstate Highway system has done, but your Seattle transit blog link has no more credibility than the other blogs you've provided in the past.

You didn't read my post. Congress passed the law. Congress always intended it to go through cities. I'm not arguing Eisenhower's intentions, but Eisenhower's intentions functionally don't matter because the President can craft a vision, but the law that ultimately gets enacted is what Congress crafts unless the President vetoes it. Congress designed it to go through cities. Eisenhower signed it.

That has nothing to do with it. The highway system was created and passed by Congress and they always intended to go through cities. The Atlantic recently published an article debunking the whole idea that freeways weren't supposed to do that and they're not exactly a right wing publication.http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/02/it-or-not-most-urban-freeways-are-here-stay/8428/

Because its revisionist history which runs rampant around here. IMO, its relevant to understand the context of why things developed the way that they did, not just look at it in context of today.

know that many people here are all in on finding any argument at all to build the tallest buildings possible, but this really is stretching it. The original comment was about a completely different complex, not even discussing the location in the topic and talked about traveling a distance of 270 feet, less than the distance of a football field between buildings. No one has addressed what the actual distance between buildings is at Shell. No one has addressed my prior comments about how frequently it is actually necessary to leave the building throughout the course of a normal day. People on this forum complain about the lack of street level retail in downtown. If you're unwilling to walk 270 feet outside during the workday, then that probably explains why restaurants thrive in the tunnels and not on the streets.

No question that there's always opportunity to improve, but when we see opportunities to improve, that's exactly what they are, not necessarily a lack of foresight in the original implementation.

Slick is the biggest proponent of sprawl on this forum. He spreads the same comments over every available thread regardless of the topic.

I'm sure that HCC has some basic US government classes to help you to understand how the different levels of government work. Might be helpful.

I think that this has now surpassed the Heights Walmart thread and has now become the most pointless discussion on HAIF.

I'm almost getting a sense that the voters in that district are opposed to light rail running through their neighborhoods. I wonder what their elected representatives should do?

It's also important to point out that not every opposing point of view is wrong. I like to believe that there is room for legitimate disagreement even about the best way to achieve an agreed objective.

Saw a sign last night at La Centerra showing application for a liquor license for Torchy's Tacos.

My personal experience is that truth and marketing are two words that rarely find themselves in the same sentence.

So you kind of missed my original point which is that the vast majority of people in a company interact with a small percentage of the company and that can be grouped into a single building. If you're spending most of the day walking between buildings, you're either part of an extremely small percentage or the person that laid out the internal design of the buildings did a horrible job.

I'm 100% percent in agreement with you. Attribute my comment regarding I-10 to my continuing fruitless quest to keep this thread on something slightly resembling the topic. You make an important point that I agree with completely. There are several people that are continually making gloom and doom statements about how Houston will be unable to achieve major city status without a vast rail system, yet there is really no data to back that up. Transportation is just one of many factors that people consider when looking at a city and it's clear that in both Austin and Houston, people are finding significant enough advantages to continue to relocate here. In my opinion, those advantages are plentiful jobs and relatively cheap housing. As a region, continued growth will tie to our ability to offer those advantages.

Aren't you one of the biggest proponents for making Houston more walkable and urbanized? And then you show up here complaining about having to walk 270 feet between buildings because it might be raining, cold, or humid??

Way to take the high road. Love the "I didn't get what I wanted, so I hope that your life is miserable as a result" sentiment.

Got it. You don't understand the irony. Let me explain. Go look at the US Census Bureau domestic migration statistics. Most of the major cities in the US have been losing population during the last several years while Houston has continued to gain population. People are continually leaving the cities that you believe are so much more advanced than Houston and they are moving here. There are reasons for this of course. Jobs and low cost of living for a major city being the biggest of them. The kind of things that the expansion of I10 helped provide.

You do realize the irony of what you just said right?