zaphod

I never suggested that we would house the poor next to junkyards and concrete plants. Instead I am suggesting that we buy the land from under the junkyards and ready mix plants and tear them all down. So those things would be gone(their owners would presumably take the city's offer and move to Crosby)Then replace them with affordable housing development. This kills two birds with one stone - it removes blight AND it adds affordable housing.

I love how this tower has a certain kind of symettry and theme, like the older 1980s towers near it. Houston's skyline is very recognizable and this contributes positively to that. I really dislike the current trend in architecture where a lot of buildings are goofy jenga stacks of glass blocks with a weird oversized podium. Those buildings don't look like anything, they are just noise. To make matters worse, that style is associated with the dubious under-occupied condo towers for the foreign mega-rich to hoard or launder their money in cities like Melbourne, Vancouver, etc which often don't have a real economic foundation to justify their levels of real estate investment.

I hate to be that guy, and to be clear I'm not opposed to public owned affordable housing development, but... Isn't it really expensive to build high rise apartment units compared to other forms of housing? Especially buildings like this, it appears to be far more high end than a standard midrise block or concrete slab tower. What kind of factors or variables lead to the decision to put public housing resources into mixed income high rises in one of the ritziest areas of town? If I was in charge I think I would strategically buy up land that's currently occupied by noxious, trash land uses that hurt surrounding communities, like junkyards and concrete plants around Acres Homes and the Northside. Then I would plow all that under and build tidy looking houses and small apartments there, with trees and stuff. The land must be very cheap, and so would the construction methods for that kind of housing. And instead of it all being apartments, I would mix in some housing to sell to specially qualified persons. Create a real neighborhood.

The big empty areas I am referring to: NE: The area around Generation Park and Lake Houston Pkwy E: Huffman. How much would it cost vs. other options to expand the Crosby Fwy instead SW: The Missouri City antenna fields along Fort Bend Tollway S: Manvel, which is closer to downtown than Katy. Once Pearland builds out it is next in like down 288. SE: Alvin, if TXDOT built an SH 35 Tollway This is more sprawl, but it's no worse than building pushing the suburban edge to touch Brookshire and Waller next. All of these things are less than 25 miles from Downtown, which is approximately the distance from Katy to the city center.

The opposition has a bigger picture in mind. Expanding freeways induces sprawl outward in certain directions at the expense of others while leapfrogging areas of the city where there is a lot of vacant or underutilized land. Houston has a lot of room to grow to the northeast. It has big empty areas all over the place, including inside the Beltway. There are other highways that don't get a lot of traffic. There are other highways which could facilitate growth elsewhere, like a toll road to Alvin. Big picture, my friend. The Houston metro is growing. The Houston metro is a big place. Infinitely expanding the already overcrowded highways in the parts of the city that already sprawl out to the limits of what normal people are willing to commute is the highest cost lowest return option there is.

Honestly, I would just tear the entire thing down and coordinate with the city to realign the streets by the bayou. Franklin could probably arc out a little bit, allowing restoration of the bayou's banks and make room for steps that go down to a waterfront patio or plaza. If the freeway reconstruction happens, most plans ive seen suggest that I-10 will shift north and the I-45 loop will be reduced in size, making the site more open and less constrained on its northern half. Then subdivide it into multiple blocks and gradually fill them in with conventional mixed use development. Over the long span of time it will just feel like an extension of downtown. IMO there's nothing special about that post office. Houston is full of buildings that look like that and they aren't endangered.

Where were these people before they were homeless, or when they were not homeless or in shelters or institutions or jail? Did they live with relatives or friends? A dilapadated motel? Also where do we expect them to go if/when they become clean? Seattle doesn't have an equivalent to Aldine or Cloverleaf, so where are the kind of people living in those wrecked trailers clustered together in the woods living? Also giving them housing doesn't mean we give them full sized apartments. What about some kind of dorm with on-site security? I don't think institutionalization is necessarily the right answer because taking away a person's freedoms is not a casual matter. Think about what it takes to put someone in prison, and those are criminals who actually hurt someone. You want to give someone a life sentence behind bars just because they were a public nuisance? How would you enforce these rules and apply 'strikes' against a person leading to them being locked up? Sounds like something that could be abused or subject to bias. If we are going to put people in institutions then their liberties must only be restricted by the absolute minimum degree necessary, with frequent reviews where the restrictions would be lifted. Instead of imprisoning people in mental wards what about hybrid outpatient options where people aren't locked up?

I don't know many details but I have an ancestor who was an oilfield foreman and stayed at a camp in that general area around that time period. Maybe it was West Columbia.

Source? It's never clear cut. It's likely that being homelessness triggers or makes otherwise manageable mental disorders that many otherwise "normal" people suffer from worse. So why fight it then? It may be easier to get people off the street and into treatment if you stabilize their situation with a stable place to stay. Expecting people who are in a world of shit to turn into a model "deserving poor" person overnight is delusional. At best they aren't in public causing trouble. I wouldn't just assume charities are going to be present and have the right resources. There needs to be some public services that are assured to possess adequate capacity. And what are those solutions, then? Don't leave us hanging. Turner is the mayor of a city in the state of Texas. He does not have the power to change laws allowing mentally ill people to be committed to institutions. States and the Federal government is responsible for comprehensive mental health care services. What would a conservative or Republican mayor do about the problem? Abolish the harm reduction programs for ideological reasons despite evidence they work? Just pack the jails full of vagrants until there's no more room for criminals? Shuffle off the problem from visible areas where upper class people dwell and into neighborhoods where the problem is hidden(have you driven on Jensen? It's bum city). I don't understand the Turner hate. None of the people challenging him have ever given any rational policy statements. They just complain about how Turner is doing everything wrong. Ok, what would they do differently? There isn't enough "waste" in government to magically pay firefighters huge salaries and fix all the potholes. Everything would require cuts to other things, robbing peter to pay paul.

Makes sense that a nice dark patina would form there. Better than some beige stucco that fades out. One thing I wonder about is the future of all these modern buildings with metal panels and bits that stick out. That stuff will rust in the corners over time and look bad.

Statistics are better than Reddit comments. Anecdotes don't really describe reality well. Homelessness could be cut in half and then half again, but there would still be gathering spots and out of millions of people going about their daily life someone would still see one and rant about it online. IMO, the city should do as much as it can to reduce the issue. Nobody wants to feel like they are on the set of the Walking Dead which is how it is in the worst spots and in cities that have the problem worse than Houston. But no matter how hard we try there will always be a little grit, that is just life in the big city.

Beyond the segments described as in the works, where do they think it will go from there? I can try to imagine a narrow right-of-way alignment straddling the railroad tracks similar to the Hardy Toll Road, but past the Beltway it would run into the old part of Pearland and there would be significant eminent domain required.

If anything the eastern fringe of the med center is the best area for this stuff. It's not really walkable, there are few businesses, most residential areas consist of gated apartment complexes, right? So even if there was problem with the people coming and going from this facility(as you say there probably won't be and people are scared of nothing) it won't effect anyone. The worst thing you can do is concentrate social services in areas like Midtown and the East End(the status quo) because those are such open and exposed public spaces where you want people to feel safe walking or using public transit. That's how you get Wheeler station.

True that. It looks like a completely normal, clean, and safe motel that normal people who are traveling away from home might actually spend the night in. The other places in the area look sketchy, like hooker/drug hangouts.

Will the public still be able to use the beach or are they taking away a beach to give to private interests? Is this a result of the demise of the open beaches act? What a shame, I can't believe they would approve something like this.

Blow it up and build something else.

I'm glad that a building like that could be saved and reused. I hope they keep or replace the window frames and the awnings with similar looking ones.

So that explains what's ultimately going to be built. There have been a few renderings and they have all been a bit different. I wonder when the buildings closer to University are going to start?

I was in Brenham today and remembered there's another fried chicken place in the area that flies under the radar; Hartz chicken. Way back in the day I seem to remember they had some kind of gimmick, like a truck shaped like a chicken that clucked, or something like that? Or am I crazy and thinking of another place? Who had the lit up polyurethane chicken sort of like the jack in the box on the roof of the store?

You ought to do a blog post on all this. Personally I dislike Century Square. All it's streets are insular, it has parking on all sides. For a place that is ostensibly pedestrian friendly. It looks like Sugarland Town Center.

I just noticed, there is now construction equipment on the old plaza tower site

Just to keep this thread going... Bulldozers Rip Through Albertsons, Making Room for "The Stack": http://www.kbtx.com/...-164090986.html User comments on the page suck as usual. Apparently building a high density student housing development across the street from the university is not a good idea?

I just ate at the new Huntsville location. It was very good, I'd definitely eat there again. It's a little different from Chicken Express as far as the rolls, the seasoning, how much you get in a meal, etc, so I can see it co-existing with the competition around town if they ever come back to Bryan-College Station.

A crane with a pile driver or drill of some kind(not a construction guy, lol) has been on the site for a while. Wonder what that means? I imagine if we are in fact getting the tall building in the rendering it's foundation would be pretty robust compared to the slabs you see typical 3 story apartments go up on. Good news then, maybe