On 1/5/2024 at 7:32 PM, hindesky said:

Since you can't be bothered to look on page 1 where I posted the ownership once before, here is the current ownership according to HCAD. Apparently KHOU CBS still has the rights to a helipad like they did when this was still the HQ. 

 

I'm going to presume you meant to quote Shasta (who claimed Hines owns the property), rather than me.

45 minutes ago, CREguy13 said:

Hines is developing the project on behalf of their client, SCI.

SCI Capital Holdings, Inc. is the specific entity that owns this land.

Is Hines the developer or the development manager?  I suspect the latter.  Either way, correct, SCI, not Hines, owns the property

5 hours ago, shasta said:

Project Green: Mixed-Use Development On Allen Parkway By Hines

Are you actually thinking that quoting the topic headline (a headline that probably should be edited) proves something?  . 

12 minutes ago, goofy said:

Issue is we’ve had retraction in Houston. Sprouts and Whole Foods cut stores, Randall’s is almost out of the game entirely. Too big for a TJ. A target is going up the other side of 610 and HEB is 8 minutes from here. There’s a Kroger deep in GOOF but it truly sucks. 
 

My DREAM is a central market. 

Where is Target going up?

The plans for the new Northline Transit Center include potential retail onsite.

21 minutes ago, shasta said:

I don't care about the company...it's a prominent site ON ALLEN PARKWAY that Hines owns..they can choose to go with another client that fits a design worthy of this location so close to the new Ismaili Center.

 

Build your coffin company glass box building in a Pearland surface parking lot shopping center next to Texas Roadhouse, Kohls and a Chik-Fil-A.

Hines does not own the property.

10 hours ago, Nate_56 said:

Any updates on the Lululemon construction?

FWIW, I was told by a Lululemon employee that they still plan to complete the "experiential Lululemon at Highland Village, but he didn't know a timeline.

38 minutes ago, Triton said:

What grocery store could go into this location? Definitely not Whole Foods nor HEB.

Why not HEB?

8 hours ago, Amlaham said:

Did I ask? Stop trying so hard to seek validation, this entire page is you just going back and forth with others. 

Sorry if you are bothered by the quest for facts.

1 hour ago, Amlaham said:

UK signage North of Westheimer and outside of the zone suggested above. @j_cuevas713 is correct. 

 

You are a little late to the party.  I already noted that the UKMD extends to the north right-of-way line of Westheimer, which would include the street sign. At this location, the property itself (everything north of the Westheimer right-of-way) is not in the district.

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

If we're strictly talking about the property line, sure, but the ROW shouldn't change. If anything the property should align itself with the current ROW design, not revert to the design standards just because it new construction. That's really my only point. If ANYTHING, what should happen is the business should increase the pedestrian realm and add a door on the Westheimer side instead of damn near 10 feet of plants. 

Agreed, a door on the Westheimer side would have been good.  But they may not have followed the UKMD sidewalk design for Westheimer because it sucks.  A 5-foot-wide sidewalk (and I presume 2222 Westheimer's are 6-feet wide) with pedestrian buffer is better urban/pedestrian design than a 5- or 6-foot wide sidewalk with trees and light poles plopped in the middle of it. I've never understood why they did Westheimer sidewalks the way they did.

9 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Dude I'm not sure what you're trying to prove but I've already talked to Lee Cisneros who is the head of the capital improvement projects for the neighborhood and it's definitely part of UKMD. It was one of the main capital improvement projects for the neighborhood. Not sure why you're showing me an old map from 2015. 

Lee should check his legal documents.  ;-)  2222 Westheimer is not in the district.  Technically, I think we may both be right.  The district ends at the northern right-of-way line of Westheimer Road, but the property itself is not in the district.  I showed you a map from 2015 because, per the city, that is it the last time the district's boundaries were expanded.  Here's the City's map of the district from 2022.

https://www.houstontx.gov/ecodev/tirzmaps/maps/tirz_19.pdf

52 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Trust me it is, I live here. That website is never updated and they also never let the neighborhood know when they have meetings. When they do they're all scheduled on Mondays at Noon. UKMD literally rebuilt this entire section of Westheimer just a little over 10 years ago so it's in their maintenance borders. 

The legal description from the formation of the district, and the official maps in the various amendments and legal documents show that the subject property (2222 Westheimer) is not part of the UKMD. That's probably why UKMD didn't do to these sidewalks what they did to the other sidewalks when this section of Westheimer was rebuilt.  https://www.houstontx.gov/ecodev/tirzdocs/19/boundary2015.pdf

https://www.houstontx.gov/ecodev/tirzdocs/19/boundary2015.pdf

https://www.houstontx.gov/ecodev/tirzdocs/19/boundary2015.pdf

https://www.houstontx.gov/ecodev/tirzdocs/19/creation.pdf

29 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It is, I walk by it daily after grabbing coffee at DUO. I'm not a fan of the "pedestrian buffer.' I think all it does is prevents drivers from being able to see pedestrians. I'm all for trees with grates, how UK has them currently. I think both the planning dept and public works need to be aware of this design flaw. It looks good on paper but it's not practical. Planters make more sense then a bunch of mulch. 

Per the map on their website, the UKMD only includes the south side of Westheimer, but they do seem to have followed the UK design as they re-did Westheimer (and have the UK street signs) on the north side.  FWIW, I like this better than the sidewalks half-blocked by trees.  Love street trees and love sidewalks, but if they're going to plant trees and place light poles in the sidewalks, they need to make the sidewalks that much wider.

On the Kirby part of Upper Kirby, they have pedestrian buffers, more like 2222 Westheimer.

11 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

The sidewalk was wider before. Not sure why the width changed but I'm assuming it's to meet the design requirements for new construction. I measured the sidewalk yesterday and almost 2 feet are gone in exchange for the buffer. I'm not sure why the ROW is part of the design when UKMD already set the design for the neighborhood. 

Hmmm... so, what is it that you are going to report to Public Works?  FWIW. I don't think this property is in the UKMD.

On 12/23/2023 at 4:08 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

They took sidewalk away smh I def gotta report this to Public Works. 

What sidewalk did they take away?

28 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

I mean... "a good deal" is pretty strong. The Downtown TC and adjoining Red Line stop are a 7-minute and a 5-minute walk, respectively,  from the old Greyhound stop, and each has more utility than Magnolia Park/Green Line, I'd say.

vs. a 1-minute walk to both light rail and transit center from the new location.

On 12/22/2023 at 12:14 AM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

the guy quoted in the cnn article is right. We need an intermodal location for bus and train. The only difficulty is that the train station is nearly impossible to find, and the parking lot there is garbage for busses at the moment. The advantage to using the train station as intermodal is that it is in a relatively safe area thanks to all the police officer stations nearby.

The new station is at an intermodal location.  I cannot imagine there is much utility to having an intercity bus station adjacent to an Amtrak station, especially Houston's Amtrak station, with its barely-existing service.

On 12/19/2023 at 12:24 PM, corbs315 said:

interesting. CNN had an almost identical article today. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/17/business/greyhound-buses-transportation-cities/index.html

From the CNN article:  ". . . Greyhound last month closed its centrally-located terminal and moved to a smaller stop with less access to public transit." 

Their new station is a good deal closer to a light rail station and a transit center than the old Midtown station.

22 minutes ago, Big E said:

The most that's gonna happen to that land is that its going to become a series of parking lots for a few years till developers scoop them up and develop them. They were throwing around this idea for a "skypark" but that looked like an overly ambitious pipe dream and nobody's even mentioned that in any official capacity in months. Extending a canal from Buffalo Bayou to the location of the Pierce elevated isn't possible because the Downtown Connector will block the route, not even getting into the issue of existing utilities and such that would have to be dug up.

I think there's a better chance most of it will become parkland (without a canal).

11 minutes ago, samagon said:

do you think the holidays have impacted your traffic counts?

Not significantly.  This count comports with my casual observations in the past.  Polk just does not carry much traffic, especially eastbound.  And to the extent the holidays might have impacted my traffic count, I cannot imagine any reason Polk would be more impacted by the holidays than any of the other streets leading east out of downtown.

15 hours ago, JClark54 said:

@Houston19514You're someone who relies on facts to make sound commentary. Would you mind sharing your evidence that the Polk closure won't negatively impact train-vehicular transit interactions? The last two times I made the request, you did not comment. 

If the evidence exists, I am more than happy to drop the topic altogether anytime someone brings up Polk. 

The fact is, Polk Street carries very little traffic outbound from downtown.  I am in that area somewhat frequently and I happened by it yesterday evening on my walk.  I stopped at Polk at the southeast corner of the GRB, and stood there counting outbound vehicles for 15 minutes, from 5:20 pm to 5:35 pm, surely one of the busier times of the day for outbound traffic.  Results:

In 15 minutes, again, pretty close to the peak of rush hour, 11 cars took Polk Street outbound under the freeway.  And 6 of them turned left on the frontage road, so were not proceeding on Polk to the East End railroad crossing.  It seems reasonable to presume that some of the remaining 5 cars also took other turns or stopped somewhere in the 1.2 miles before getting to the railroad tracks.  Meanwhile, Leeland, Jefferson and Pierce were all MUCH busier with outbound traffic. Really no comparison to Polk; Many multiples of the number of cars. With outbound traffic already heavily concentrated on Leeland, Jefferson and Pierce, the addition of the few vehicles currently taking Polk will be inconsequential

The railroad crossing situation is much better addressed at the railroad crossings

Cool.  But Bissonnet Street?  Is there really a Bissonnet Street on the Northside?

1 hour ago, JClark54 said:

Everyone who has spent decent time here knows why Polk mentions ultimately turn into railroad debates. It happens every time. 

The Polk discussion is brought back from the dead in some fashion -- in this case a remark about all streets connecting. Those familiar with east end traffic write in support of keeping it. Questions are raised as to why? Its status as one of three downtown-connecting streets with a separation is mentioned as an invaluable asset. Then it turns into why can't you just go around it? Later, the ask to move/citation/fine/regulation position.  

If people here don't want to end up reading about trains, simply don't stur the Polk nest. It's clearly a connection many people are opinionated about. Houston has three train trap triangles, as the FRA identifies them. Two are in the east end. One is impacted by the Polk closure.

Yes, the Polk Street crossing is going away.  Time to let it go.  OR, as Samagon put it (before his most recent 3 posts on the topic), no need to get in and rehash all of that now. 

Any additional amelioration of the impacts of the Polk closure, whether they be real or imagined, will have to be addressed at the railroad crossings (where the actual issue seems to be).

Mods, please move the railroad posts to the appropriate thread. https://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/50164-west-belt-project-underpasses-in-district-h-i-railroads/page/2/

 Mods, can we (again) move the discussion about East End railroad crossings to the appropriate thread?

17 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'll say it again: for anybody on a bike (which is an ever-increasing number), losing Polk is significant. Fixable with proper lanes or paths along Leeland and Rusk, but right now the only safe crossings are Gray and Polk (and kindasorta Runnels). 

Bikers will probably end up better off.  While you won't be able to go straight across at Polk, there will likely be better bikepaths over the cap, just to the north, and will definitely be better crossing paths on the bridges across the freeway to the south. The new bridges in the area to the south of Polk are all going to have very nice wide bike/pedestrian spaces on them.