Jump to content

Texasota

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,774

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Texasota

  1. Texasota
    Right, but it's ridiculous that Chapter 42 allows that. It should instead require more reasonable block lengths so that developers would have to apply for a variance for more than, oh, let's say 1400' b/w streets (that Planning Commission would of course immediately rubber stamp, but still!, it's the principle!)
  2. Texasota
    Stop giving me false hope!
  3. Texasota
    Eminent domain it and make it affordable housing...
  4. Texasota
    Oh come on, you know that's not true. Most of Europe has major boulevards and avenues that are that wide (or wider), but the vast majority of streets in European cities are nowhere near 100ft. Now, I don't know that we particularly need (or would even want) Medieval-scaled streets, but 100' ROW is only a good idea IF a lot of that is dedicated to transit and/or bike lanes. I actually think Main Street Downtown/Midtown is a good local precedent - that ROW is probably, what? 60' roadbed+ sidewalks? Probably narrower in a few places. And that gives us, at the most, a tramway, two lanes of traffic, two parking/drop-off lanes, and (somewhat narrow) sidewalks. Now, I would probably argue that a street like Clinton should be wider than that because it needs to be a way through for cars, but the internal streets don't need that width because, while cars need to access them (or at least some of them), they will be using them for garage access, deliveries, etc, and speed and volume are not the concern. For Clinton, my ideal street would look something like this: Tramway/BRT: 35' (ish) Car travel lanes (either 2 or 4 - I'm feeling generous): 22-44' (I know that the City's standard lanes are 11', but that's just an arbitrary compromise. I would argue for 11' lanes if it's one lane each direction and 10' lanes if it's two) 2-way PBL: 12' Sidewalks: 30' (10' + 5' for street trees and such on each side) Which would give you a ROW of b/w 99' and 121'. But again, that's one street, and I don't think the interior streets need to be anywhere near that wide.
  5. Texasota
    This thread got bizarrely aggressive for no apparent reason...
  6. Texasota
    Well, hopefully not like the JW on Main, since there is no remaining historic material on that building, but otherwise I agree.
  7. Texasota
    You think it's ugly. I think it would look fantastic cleaned up with full-size windows.
  8. Texasota
    You are a monster and you should never be forgiven.
  9. Texasota
    The reality is that, in a city of this size, they're both reasonable locations for stations. And that's, in a perverse way, kind of the problem. This station will be reasonably convenient for a lot of people, but it won't be very convenient for those of us who live in and support the revitalization of the old city - downtown, midtown, "EADO", the museum district, Montrose, etc, and are probably *most* supportive of transit generally. And that just sucks. That doesn't mean that this isn't still worthwhile, it just means that a lot of the people who, in an ideal world, would be the loudest defenders of a project like this are going to feel a bit let down and like this is a "compromise" in the most pejorative sense.
  10. Texasota
    That's not how architectural significance works. Architectural significance doesn't mean "fancy." And just because you don't like something or think it's boring, that doesn't mean it's not significant.
  11. Texasota
    What is even your point? "Target" is not a person. The actual people at the company responsible for making location decisions make those decisions based on a variety of factors, and downtown is changing pretty rapidly.
  12. Texasota
    People's faith in the unerring perfection of the market is so bizarre to me. As though unmet needs are always immediately addressed, nothing is ever delayed, and mistakes are never made. There are lots of possible reasons why there is not Target downtown. It's entirely plausible that the market wouldn't support it, but it's also possible that Target can only open so many stores at a time, and it just hasn't prioritized this market yet. Target only pretty recently began focusing on smaller format City Targets, and I think it's fair to assume that they're starting with apparent "sure thing," more obviously established markets. It's also worth keeping in mind that, even if Target would theoretically be interested in building a small format store downtown (or, I think more likely, in Midtown), they would still need a site and a developer to partner with. Just saying "if it made money than Target, in its infinite wisdom, would will it to be so" is bizarrely nihilistic and unhelpful.
  13. Texasota
    Wait, how is this bad again? There are already taller buildings (albeit inconsistently) along Montrose Boulevard. And why is inconsistency inherently bad? And why are two towers immediately next to each other worse than one?
  14. Texasota
    I have never used self storage and genuinely don't understand the purpose of it, except for short-term purposes or unexpected inheritance you need to figure out something to do with. Why keep something if you're not using it? How many people really have stuff worth holding onto that can't be just as easily (and probably just as cheaply) replaced if you move into a larger place?
  15. Texasota
    Not to mention, they had to tear down an existing building to make room for the Foley House. None of this makes any sense at all. And it will be hardieboard. I absolutely guarantee it.
  16. Texasota
    If that siding had been white pine then replacing it every 30 years would be reasonable, but it was either cypress or longleaf. This house also probably had cedar interior shiplap. I do not understand why they wanted this house if this is what they're doing to it.
  17. Texasota
    "was not salvaged" does not necessarily equal "not salvageable"
  18. Texasota
    They said 50 miles of bike lanes, so that seems fair to assume.
  19. Texasota
    This is just confusing. Of course joggers prefer uninterrupted stretches, but that doesn't stop them from running on Heights Boulevard, or on city streets in every densely populated city in the world. Beyond that, this really seems like it's intended as an expanded sidewalk/ pedestrian promenade first and a potential jogging path second. It will be more convenient if you live nearby than going down to Rice or up to the bayou, though those are both better in terms of uninterrupted stretches. As for your last sentence, I have no idea what's going on there.
  20. Texasota
    so, in the bike plan, the total cost of "short-term opportunities" is estimated at $27-51 million, and "Key connections" are projected at $73-119 million. $15.5 million is a very nice start on the short-term opportunities.
  21. Texasota
    let's all just ignore the seven story concrete box the building is sitting on...
  22. Texasota
    Yeah I never understood the criticisms of the Plan. They *would* have been totally valid had the city never followed up on anything, but that's not what appears to be happening.
  23. Texasota
    Now I'm just suspicious. This all sounds too good.
  24. Texasota
    The opposite is more likely. I don't think I've ever seen a building where the retail component opens before residential.
  25. Texasota
    View of what? If they're looking at apartment buildings they can at least pretend they're actually in a city.
×
×
  • Create New...