burlesona

Why?

Lots of reasons... it's existing infrastructure framework and proximity to downtown for starters. Keep in mind I said the center of urban living in Houston. I don't mean that it should be the only urban residential place, but that it should be the area the city focuses on improving first as the centerpiece and example for future areas to follow. I think areas around Uptown could follow eventually, and possible some of the Washington Ave. corridor, and possible some of the area south of the Medical Center.

Honestly, though, there aren't a lot of places well suited for dense urban living in Houston. Midtown is one of the few, and it's the farthest along in its redevelopment. The city has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from investing in its core, and residential development helps keep retail alive and crime down.

I posted a few thoughts on my blog today about the superblock and how it could be remade.

Here's the key thought... I think it's really important that they extend Tuam to keep east-west connectivity alive. This is especially critical for pedestrians.

But if you don't have a continuous green, then it doesn't make a lot of sense for all five blocks to be a park.

So, my thought is, the city should take the southern two blocks (south of Tuam) and put in a new mega YMCA. They could then swap properties with the Downtown YMCA, and that site could be redeveloped.

Then, if they build parking in the model of Discovery Green downtown and allowed the surrounding blocks to share this parking, that could FINALLY spark the total transformation of that corner of Midtown.

This is long overdue, I think. The center of Midtown really should be the definitive heart of urban residential living in Houston. Having a big park with playing fields and the YMCA with community meeting space and fitness facilities would be a real win for the neighborhood.

There's a rendering of my concept on my blog: http://neohouston.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/mcgowen-green/.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, also leave comments on the blog if you enjoyed reading it! Thanks!

The new scheme is wonderful. I live DT and can live without morons going down Travis at 60mph trying to catch all the greens.

Agreed. I live in Midtown, and find the sync is working really well. I can get across downtown in usually one or two cycles, and a few days ago I made it from Franklin to Gray on Smith St. in one cycle, no stop.

People spend a lot of time arguing about whether or not transit is worth the money, whether or not the passenger mile cost is less etc. When you compare the total cost of car ownership though, this is a no-brainer...

This, from http://neohouston.wordpress.com

Cars are expensive. AAA says:

That's for one car.

Consider that about 7% of US households EARN LESS THAN $10,000 PER YEAR. Another 17% make between $10,000 and $25,000 per year, for a total of about 24% of the US earning less than $25,000 per year.

The median household income in the US is about $50,000, and the average cost to own two cars (so Mom and Dad can both be adults) is about $20,000.

Moreover, that money is COMPLETELY GONE. It's invested in a rapidly depreciating asset that literally burns your money out the tail pipe. People who aren't chained to the machine can reap a huge financial benefit. This report, released last week, estimates that people using public transit to commute to and from work are saving about $9,500 a year, nationwide.

People in a transit-oriented could be investing their money in PROPERTY. Acquiring appreciating or stable long term investments is the key to wealth accumulation. Cars are basically anti-wealth machines.

Now, for those of you who argue about what transit costs per passenger, and so on and so forth, I have a question for you: WHO CARES???

The current US transportation system requires citizens to pay a fortune and risk their lives each day, become fully dependent on others for mobility, or withdraw to the margins of society.

THAT is why we need a multi-modal transportation system. THAT is why the cost per passenger mile is a load of crock.

If we could transition every city in America to a multi-modal transportation system where the average family could reasonably choose to own only ONE car instead of TWO, we would be pumping about $10,000 per year per family into the economy. Now *THAT'S* a stimulus package!

This is a good topic of conversation, but shilling for your own blog rather than sharing your opinions here on this forum, that's weak. IMHO.

You want me to repost and repost? I follow about a dozen forums etc. I'd like to post all that jazz on each of them to get feedback, but it's a lot easier to just give you a link and ask what you think about it.

So, have you got any actual thoughts?

Personally, I think the price-floor on oil has some merit.

Business Week Magazine makes a compelling case for a price-floor on oil, which I covered on my blog today: http://neohouston.wordpress.com/2008/07/28...d-oil-be-cheap/

Basically, they suggest putting in a tax that kicks in when oil drops below a certain price, effectively the tax would be the difference between the market price and the target price, a "floor" if you will that the price cannot fall below.

Keeping energy expensive is good for a lot of the country (like HOUSTON maybe?), and price stability is better for the market. I think the idea of a price-floor is pretty good, especially if the revenues can be used to improve the long-term financial health of the country.

For what it's worth, I drive on Kirby at about 5:30 PM very regularly, and I don't find the road to be unbearably congested. It's slow, but it moves.

The key here is two-fold: wider lanes do increase travel speeds, and increased speed increases accidents more than anything else. When lanes are narrowed, speeds drop. Now, narrow lanes DO have more fenderbenders than wider lanes, typically. But, with the decreased speed comes decreased severity of accidents.

You know, it's funny, but it's almost like there's some sort of constant... like the dollar value of all wrecks on a road will be the same, but with fast, wide lanes you get a smaller number of bigger wrecks, and with small, slow lanes you get a higher number of smaller accidents.

I have no evidence for that, but it seems to play out based on other observations I've made.

Posted on neohouston: http://neohouston.wordpress.com

This is my alternative idea for the Kirby widening. It's probably too late to save the trees, but perhaps could still be implemented someday to help reduce the traffic.

http://neohouston.wordpress.com/2008/07/22...y-can-be-saved/

Please leave comments on the blog. The blog itself is new, you all find it an enjoyable read!