intencity77

Hate to say I told y’all so but Lovett was the wrong developer for this project. Hell, Midway had a later start on East River and it’s already starting to make more headway than Lovett is on this project. Sad. 

5 minutes ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

the sugar and cloth color wall? WTF is that... lol

A color blocked wall mural that was originally off Canal in the East End. Guess it’s since moved to Green Street. 

If not Alamo Draft House, a boutique type cinema would be nice too. We have a Violet Crown here in Santa Fe, NM and it’s really nice. I feel since AMC bought out Sundance downtown there has a been a real void of this type cinema on this side of town. 

Is the “anchor tenant” below the cinema where the grocery store is to go? It is the largest retail space at 27k sq. ft. Unless by grocery store, you mean Sprouts or Trader Joe’s which utilize smaller footprints?

If one wants to pinpoint the blame somewhere we cannot simply blame TXDOT. I think you also have to add in the mentality factor as well. The majority of Texans and Houstonians in particular have been groomed through the years to believe that bigger, wider, super freeways, here, there and everywhere, are the ONLY answer to vehicular traffic issues. Groomed to the point that most are blinded by how truly destructive, expensive and outrageous many of these freeway projects are. If Houston were a real progressive minded city on transportation issues, protesting would have occurred years ago when this project was initially announced and by now, we could have seen a much better version with added in transit options or just killed altogether. In order for us to demand better results from mega transportation projects such as this one, the perceptions of freeways has to change for the majority of Houstonians. There is no way around that. I think we are, albeit extremely slowly and way behind many other cities on the issue. I do believe that the added in possibility of the very pretty, very enticing and unfunded park caps on this project prove that. Their existence in the official renderings were purely a ploy, a hypnotizing trinket, by TXDOT to softened the blowback they knew they’d surely receive from the public had there been no possibility of the caps at all.

That astounding two billion dollars going towards the very rural and desolate northeastern section of the Grand Parkway would have better served for the expansion of Metro’s public transportation and rail network within Houston. What a waste! Unfortunately this region still has its priorities very wrong on occasions and it’s being held back because of it. 

The signage size looks appropriate for the blank space given. I’ve noticed that signage is often way to oversized in Houston compared to other cities. Maybe that’s why some are seeing this as being “too small” or not to scale. 

2 hours ago, felt38 said:

 

 

 

I think it would look like what was done with the Green Line on Harrisburg.....

That’s exactly what I was going to say. If Harrisburg can fit LRT, Washington definitely can. 

I find the Green Line Extension to Hobby poorly placed. It was originally proposed to go down 75th/Garland/Woodridge and then Telephone to Hobby. I believe this to be the best route for capturing the highest ridership amount possible, especially passing through the very busy Gulfgate Center. Placing the LRT farther east on Broadway (as is in this vision) makes no sense as most of the northern reaches of Broadway (north of I-610) are and always will be a predominantly industrial/port area with very low residential & pedestrian activity. 

I agree. What happened to Houstonian’s beloved and deeply cherished idea of competition??? If UH had suffered that means it would only strive to be an even better school. That’s what competition does! As mentioned, legislation could have been changed later for secondary state universities, like UH, to receive more funding. Completely pushing UT-Houston out was totally ridiculous and honesly Houston shooting itself in the foot once again. 

Boy, Houston’s good ol’ oil industry is hellbent on not leaving any iconic buildings for the next generation, especially like it did in the 70’s/80’s. While I love the concept of City Centre at street level, the buildings there and in the Energy Corridor are pretty basic, short boxes that all look quite similar. 

3 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

Yes. Yes it does.

I mean if I'm going there I can just look up the address. But in haif if someone says Chase, BOA, Wells Fargo, I know exactly what building they are taking about. Tell me 600 Travis and I have to break out the Google maps

I agree. I feel the same and don’t get me started on downtown block numbers. Those are even more confusing to me.

Hope it never gets fully built. It’s a half arsed, poor excuse for a theme park. Houston could support so much better. A mediocre park like this is only going to diminish/dilute Houston’s chances of getting a real, first class theme park in the future. 

This extension has been proposed for quite a long time now. Dare I say late 90’s-early 2000’s. I remember it intially being referred to as the “Maury Street Expressway” and being toll free. 

I still like the idea of actually grocery shopping. I am too finicky about expiration dates, freshness and substitutions to leave it up to a store clerk to pick out. Plus, ever so often new items show up. Who knows what new items I might be interested in, that I wouldn’t know about simply because I get my groceries delivered. Maybe in the future I might reconsider, but for now we aren’t completely there yet. 

No offense, but Midland-Odessa could never “boom” enough for my taste.

We were comparing the look and feel of the two projects, not the demographics. But obviously both areas are very different at the moment. But I will say the demographics in EaDo/East End have steadily been evolving in the 9 years I’ve lived in the East End and it will only continue to evolve even more so in time. Many inner loopers who’ve been priced out of the westside and some who also initially made many of the now hip neighborhoods (Heights / Montrose) what they are today, have migrated to EaDo or the East End. This trend won’t stop anytime soon. Compared to the popular westside neighborhoods, the EaDo/East End areas are both affordable (for now) and still just as close to downtown, if not closer  in some instances. 

I agree that they’re similar. Both look quite urban, judging from renderings. There are highrises/midrises in both and both are pedestrian oriented w/office, retail and residential.  I love the unique opportunities and interactions that exist with the “East River” project literally hugging a long stretch of the bayou. I think this will be a major distinction between the two projects. But I guess final judgement can’t be made until both projects are somewhat built out. 

I’d go with with East Uptown.

2 hours ago, Blue Dogs said:

Any updates on the Astrodome ?

Incorrect topic for thread. That can be posted at the topic “Future of the Astrodome”. 

https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/1890-future-of-the-astrodome/?page=28

On 9/27/2018 at 1:09 PM, MaxConcrete said:

I'm wondering if this will have any impact or influence on the plans for the redevelopment of the Imperial Sugar site. There was no activity at the Imperial Sugar site when I drove by a couple months ago. (I don't know if activity has started since then.)

 

I'm thinking the competition from the Grid may make it more difficult for the Imperial Sugar project to proceed.

Haven’t been there in awhile but looking at satellite footage I’m surprised development isn’t further along with the “Imperial Market” project. Feels like that project was announced a long time ago. Reading past articles just now, it sounds as if the project is already having start issues, regardless of the competition. The “Imperial Market” was originally to be delivered by “late 2017”. Other deadlines have come and gone and it’s now late 2018, it appears construction has still yet to begin. 

Page 56 on top of the “Pierce Skypark” is exactly what I was envisioning in my head! The views would be spectacular after more highrise developers would be naturally attracted to build next to the skypark.  I really hope the city stays committed to all three visions around downtown. It’s a stunning vision and would make downtown a true one of a kind experience. 

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

The primary difference is that it does not include the much-hated Sam's Club. Other than that, the differences between the original and and new development proposals are pretty minimal.

I disagree. Smaller shops, square footage-wise makes much better sense here in the inner city than one massive, big box retailer. 

What was wrong with West Avenue?  “Shops at Arrive” sounds nonsensical. 

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

New shopping center planned for prime site near downtown Dallas:

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2018/09/11/new-shopping-center-way-old-sams-club-site-near-dallas-cityplace

 

 

 

 

Sounds alot better than a Sams Club. Sometimes localized neighborhood opposition to a questionable development makes for a better quality development in the end. Plus, the site is too prime for a Sams Club IMO. 

I’m 100% for the elevated park on the Pierce. It’s not like New York trademarked the idea of an “elevated park”, so the “Houston is not Manhattan” arguement is useless. Cities copy each other in many ways, even Houston, it’s what they do. The EaDo park cap idea has been said and done years ago in Dallas. Should that also not be built because another city has already built a freeway park cap? Nonsense! 

As for destinations, it’s in the middle of Downtown and Midtown, two of the most thriving, upcoming districts in the city. More destinations will come along as time goes by. You have to have some long term vision. Just as those who built the Convention Center and Minute Maid Park did in the most desolate part of Downtown at the time. Now look at that area. It’s one of the hottest parts of town. 

A long, ground level park along the former Pierce Elevated would be an incredibly awful idea IMO as it would be bisected by way too many cross streets, interfering with the overall park experience. Having the park elevated would provide a continuous, non vehicular experience for the park user. Not to mention much better views of surrounding and future buildings nearby.