Houston19514

Where is Toronto's?

Toronto's is in "Exhibition Place", about 4 km from downtown, according to Google maps.

So BBVA will be the biggest soccer specific stadium in the MLS. Cool! Not by a ton, but still.

And, the only one located downtown.

This could happen fourth quarter 2012.

It would sure be nice to see this get started. Do you have a source for that?

Roads take up a certain amount of space and can support so many cars. Garages cost alot to build, and take time to get in-and-out. The higher the density gets, the more expensive parking becomes. Transit lets you bring many more people into an area without increasing road and parking requirements. And when there is enough good residential space on the transit system, all the incentives start to align. For instance, I can take the train from my house to my office in the TMC about as quickly and less expensively (20 mins, $2.50) than driving my car and parking in the garage (20 mins, $12).

Transit doesn't get rid of cars and parking. There are parking garages in Manhattan, but they are astronomically expensive. But it drives people to use the resource more sparingly. Through demand destruction, people can use more of the high density areas for productive uses instead of roads and parking.

I think I now better understand what you are saying. Not that we will be able to get rid of the current parking, but that less additional parking will be required. Makes sense. Similarly, fewer additional cars will be on the roads.

I think that I a city such a ours, I don't think that moving people from their cars is a major goal, bit rather to offer an alternative to driving to areas that are heavily congested.

I have saved time going in from webster, parking downtown and taking the train to and from the med center and reliant.

Not sure that it's not a major goal... but it is certainly not the only goal; maybe not even the primary goal. I was not suggesting otherwise; merely pointing out that Woolie's argument failed because you really can't have it both ways. If rail is not going to significantly reduce cars on the road then it is also not going to significantly reduce the need for parking.

Perhaps this video should be sent to the local goons in office.

Yes, the ramblings of long-ago office-holders, who earned 20% of the vote in their last attempt at elective office, are always meaningful.

Interesting video from the former Mayor of Houston Kathy Whitmire on why Houston has built the wrong rail system and Honolulu has built the better rail system.

There is probably a reason Kathy Whitmire got 20% and finished in third place when she ran for reelection in 1991. ;-)

$5.2 BILLION for a 20-mile line.

Broke ground in February 2011. First segment scheduled to open in 2015. The full 20-mile line is not scheduled to be completed until 2019. It remains to be seen whether this project will in any sense be a better rail system than Houston's.

I wrote this response to this, but just realized it was citykid who posted the video, and that the video is more than 2 years old. So, now I'm wondering why I bothered. Anyway...

Well, I disagree. Elevated rail avoids some issues with at-grade rail, but is more expensive, requires much larger and more complicated stations that break sight lines, and are harder to get on and off. I've been on the Las Vegas system, and it's awful and very expensive to use. I haven't been on the Miami or Detroit systems, but I am under the impression being elevated didn't make them successful. Vancouver and Seattle are elevated, but those are much denser cities to begin with. And just as relevant, at-grade light rail and tram systems are popular and successful all over the world.

So, if elevated rail is not an automatic guarantee of success, is being at-grade really a major disadvantage? I think most issues with at-grade rail can be ameliorated by dedicated lanes and traffic signal coordination. I think accidents are a non-issue after an adjustment period -- it just happens to make good local news. Good traffic signal coordination gives OK average speeds -- the stops only 1/2 mile apart. At-grade systems have some limitations on maximum car length and frequency, but light rail can't compete with a heavy rail subway system in those aspects (at 10x the cost.) Personally that kind of density would be a good problem for Houston to have -- it means everything worked!

Finally, I think all arguments about traffic, congestion, taking cars off the road, etc., aren't worth making. They aren't real arguments grounded in reality, just something politicians think people might believe. Light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, and can easily increase traffic congestion (taking up ROW, elevated or not, and at-grade pre-empting stop lights.) I don't use these arguments at all. What I think matters is that a proper transit system removes a practical limitation on density. The infrastructure to service cars (roads, garages, driveways...) adds significant cost and takes up valuable space in your highest density areas. How much of DT Houston and the TMC are parking garages or parking lots? The more people use transit, the smaller this % can become. I say this all the time, but density is the reason for a city to exist -- the concentration of human capital, goods, services, ideas, etc. The city, at least the core, should be as dense as possible -- it represents billions of dollars of investment in high density buildings. And proper transit makes this goal much easier to achieve.

Great post. Agree with almost everything in it.

BUT, if light rail doesn't take cars off the road in any significant amount, how will it ever be able to reduce the demand for parking garages/lots in downtown or TMC in any significant amount?

I went to the public hearing last night. I left after about 1/2 hour because it was just a stream of United employees parotting the lies and nonsense pumped out by their management. Felt sorry for the city council members who had to continue to sit through that nonsense for another 1 1/2 hours.

There was one slightly amusing moment. The first speaker was a 20-year United pilot. When they cut him off at the end of his 2 minute allotted time, he stood there and glared at them as if to demand they allow him to finish his pointless rant. They didn't. Pilots aren't used to being told no. ;-)

Perhaps they can also just have one fire marshall for the whole lot full of food trucks.

There are renderings earlier in this thread.

Well, technically we are already down to 24 since El Paso (#488) is gone (swallowed by Kinder Morgan # 311).

But the flip side is #4 ConocoPhillips has split in two already. And both will be headquartered here. I just don't have any knowledge of the size of the two parts - but a strong suspicion that both will be large enough to be in the top 500 so we are back to 25.

Technically, we are at 25. The Fortune 500 is a snapshot of a moment in time. Of course there will be changes between now and next year. Those will be reflected in the 2013 report.

FWIW, ConocoPhillips and Phillips66 will certainly both be Fortune 500 companies next year.

Remember we lost Continental too.

Continental is not on the 2012 list. They were already gone.

Yes, just like the Dome and Toyota Ctr. I remembered having questions about drainage.

Oh yeah. That sounds right, now that you say that. Going back and looking at construction pics, it looks like it is relatively little. Maybe 10 feet?

How deep below surface is it sunken? I would think that would also restrict air flow.

I don't recall the playing surface being sunk. Is it?

Continuing the thought I started above. I was surprised and impressed that Houston has 14 Fortune 500 headquarters downtown. This made me curious about how we compared to other cities. Other than the obvious Manhattan, nobody else is even close.

Fortune 500 Headquarters Downtown:

Manhattan 41

downtown 7

midtown 34

Houston 14

San Fran 7

Chicago 6

Minneapolis 5

Atlanta 3

Seattle 3

Dallas 3

LA 2

Boston 2

St. Louis 2

Denver 1

Same with BP. Well, I think Houston is HQ to North American Operations.

Yes. and the same for Shell

2012 Fortune 500 list is out:

Houston Metro area moved up from 23 HQs in 2011 to 25 HQs in 2012.

Houston city moved up from 22 to 23. Downtown Houston moved up from 13 to 14. (That is surely the 2nd largest concentration of HQs, after Manhattan.)

No doubt we are still the No. 2 city, after NYC, FWIW.

More important, Chicago metro stayed at 28 HQs, so we are still the no. 3 metro for Fortune 500 companies, after NYC and Chicago.

Do you think that TOD in the Dallas area will ever comprise more than a sliver of a fraction of a percent of their housing stock?

Of course Citykid thinks it will. Reality, of course, is another matter. ;-)

And, when TOD means suburban-style apartment complexes (in the suburbs), that are TOD only because they are within a block of a rail stop (and may include some park & ride parking) ... who really cares?

Glad to see some kind of progress.

I know it's off-topic, but we were discussing the Fortune 500 list here, so I thought I would post the 2012 results that are out today.

Houston Metro area moved up from 23 in 2011 to 25 in 2012.

Houston city moved up from 22 to 23. Downtown Houston moved up from 13 to 14.

Chicago metro stayed at 28, so we are still the no. 3 metro for Fortune 500 companies.

How was the remake a design failure? It's depressing that they feel the need to redo the space already however, which makes me dubious that can really become a "vibrant, exciting, active public space".

It's a baren expanse of colored concrete. There is nothing inviting about it. Nothing there to encourage people to linger.

Cool new James Turrell art installation at Rice University, named "Skyspace"

There are a lot of cool shots of Houston in the movie "Tree of Life"

Screen Shot 2012-05-06 at 11.16.45 AM by wools, on Flickr

The current view of the site. Also, why not a highrise somewhere on this parcel? It's in the final phase of the plan; it wouldn't be plopped down first in the wasteland and pray for tenants. Ashby proves you can build them anywhere

Oh, I just noticed their fantastical element. Every architecture student proposal has to have something totally imaginary. Look closely and you'll notice they've buried Smith and Louisiana streets, into a tunnel under the bayou. I wonder if the review panel noticed this? They create two half mile long tunnels of major downtown streets with barely a mark on the map to mention it, then spell out and claim credit for "utilizing existing traffic signal." Wouldn't a simpler solution just be to move the HOV onramp and I10 exit ramp over to Travis and Milam?

Also, the weird triangular bridge at Travis St. is blowed up. And Franklin (which is currently more or less a bridge along this property) is also reconfigured north into a regular, narrower surface street (remove median).

Actually, those tunnels are pretty clearly marked. The routes of the tunnels are marked by dashed lines and they are also marked with Nos. 18 and 19. (inbound and Outbound tunnels, respectively.) As to whether the tunnels will ever actually happen: Designs such as these are and should be aspirational. IF the plan is put into action, reality will of course have to be taken into account. Maybe the tunnels can happen... maybe not. Maybe throwing the I-10 traffic onto Travis/Milam along with I-45 traffic is a practical solution, maybe not.

This is great conceptual plan. I hope someone will take it and try to make as much of it as possible come to reality.

The postal serviceut that building on the market several years ago. Whether it is still officially listed as "for sale" or not, I am sure they are open to offers.