Guest danax Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I'm sure a lot of you have driven the newly re-opened, under-constuction Southwest Fwy. northbound. It looks like it's going to be a great stretch of freeway. Below grade, more chrome bridges, extensively landscaped soundwalls. On the other hand, the Eastex portion is your basic concrete pig.Just wondering out loud, will all freeways in the future be redone with this much attention to aesthetics or is this just an example of Montrose and the Museum District's clout as opposed to the hoods that the Eastex runs through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I think it is an issue of clout. On texasfreeways.com, a statement on the 59 construction page supports this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 It is definitely clout of vocal, wealthy neighbors. The original plans for the Southwest Freeway segment currently under construction involved rebuilding the old elevated freeway slightly wider, then putting a second deck above it to carry the HOV lanes. Had the freeway run through the ghetto it most likely would have been built in that configuration.A similar situation exists in Dallas with the North Central Freeway. If that project was being built south of downtown Dallas, there's no way it would have been built the way it was during its reconstruction in the 1990s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxConcrete Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Just wondering out loud, will all freeways in the future be redone with this much attention to aesthetics or is this just an example of Montrose and the Museum District's clout as opposed to the hoods that the Eastex runs through?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>The short answer is that aethetics and landscaping will play a much greater role in TxDOT projects. The master plan for this approach is called the Green Ribbon projecthttp://www.katyfreeway.org/Green_Ribbon.pdfStill, the amount of landscaping and architectural enhancements will be mainly dependent on local contributions (TxDOT does not want to pay for ongoing mainentance costs) and the amount of neighborhood involvement. The Southwest Freeway is certainly a case of neighborhood demands being met.In the future, I think we can expect local governments or improvement districts (eg Uptown Houston district) to take responsibility. I believe Sugar Land paid for the enhancements to the Southwest Freeway through Sugar Land. The last I heard, the Katy Freeway will be enhanced near Memorial Mall with contributions from the mall or some kind of improvement district. HCTRA has a plan for major landscaping along the Hardy Airport connector (which may already be in place). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestGrayGuy Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 I personally can not wait for this project to be complete. I am liking the greenery that is growing up along the sides of Montrose part of 59. I can't wait to see the bridges complete.However, with what I believe is a year left to go, the traffic is quite bad coming into downtown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaTrain Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 It's about time Southwest Freeway between Shepard and the now temporarily defunct Spur 527 to finish that trench; good thing it is quick too. It would make it the third stretch of freeway which is scenic, like North Freeway inside the loop (w/o those billboards) and the Katy Freeway running north of Memorial Park. Plus the arched bridges add character to a freeway that many others don't have. Pic from Houston Freeways, by MaxConcrete Even if lived around Montrose, I would have also rather the original 10 laner trenched. Otherwise, it could have stayed and artists would have painted under the bridge and landscaped it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 MAN, it would be awesome if they could trench it all the way to 610! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 That is a amazing pic. I love those 3 bridges. It really makes those neighboorhoods right there feel like there isnt a MAJOR highway running right through there.Does anyone else think that Kirby just south of 59 has got to be the worst stretch of pot hole ridden street in Houston? I have a sport suspension on my car and I avoid Kirby from about Richmond to Holcombe more than anywhere else I can think of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 That is a amazing pic. I love those 3 bridges. It really makes those neighboorhoods right there feel like there isnt a MAJOR highway running right through there.Does anyone else think that Kirby just south of 59 has got to be the worst stretch of pot hole ridden street in Houston? I have a sport suspension on my car and I avoid Kirby from about Richmond to Holcombe more than anywhere else I can think of.That section of Kirby is AWFUL! I live in the area and avoid it not only because of the bumps but the traffic tends to be pretty bad through there.The city has just started a project that will totally rebuild Kirby from Brays Bayou north to the Southwest Freeway, so in a couple of years, after a bad construction period, the street should be nice and smooth when it's all done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Best news eva~ I have lots of friends living in the area. Gonna be a headache I'm sure. But maybe there will be more available seating at Mi Luna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Dairy Ashford between Westheimer and Westpark Tollway is the worst I've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kzseattle Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Dairy Ashford between Westheimer and Westpark Tollway is the worst I've seen.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>And what about Hillcroft between Southwest freeway and Westheimer? Pretty bad as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 And what about Hillcroft between Southwest freeway and Westheimer? Pretty bad as well.Fortunately the city is currently repaving this section of Hillcroft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooner&RiceGrad Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 What are the hoods that the Eastex runs through like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tw2ntyse7en Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 So is it going to just be 5 of those trademark bridges across 59 then?West to East:HazardWoodheadDunlavyMandell???Graustark?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I thought the Montrose bridge was supposed to be designed by Calatrava, or something... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssullivan Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I thought the Montrose bridge was supposed to be designed by Calatrava, or something...There was a proposal to have the Montrose bridge designed by a well known architect. I don't know if that's still in the plan, or if Montrose will end up an arch like the other five. In any case, the bridges that are there now are just temporary and were put in to keep Montrose traffic flowing over the construction site while the freeway is built below. If you've driven down the freeway since traffic was moved to the depressed section you've probably noticed the crude support system in the middle of what will be the northbound freeway lanes that's holding up the Montrose bridges. After the freeway is finished then the final Montrose bridges will be built. I'm pretty sure in the final phase of construction there will be two bridges to carry the Montrose traffic - one for each direction - much as the temporary bridges are configured now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I thought the Montrose bridge was supposed to be designed by Calatrava, or something...No $$ for that, too bad. I heard it was the same architect as for the existing bridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Hopefully they spiffy the design up a tad, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Originally the Montrose bridge was going to be really fancy and designed by some well-known architect. But the original plans didn't call for a Graustark bridge either. My understanding is that after the residents lobbied to keep the bridge at Graustark, TxDOT gave in to them, but in order to pay for it they had to scale down the Montrose bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Seems silly to me to scale down the major thoroughfare to accomodate a little side street that might see 5% of the traffic that the main bridge would see. If that.I hope they like their bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsGuy Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Seems silly to me to scale down the major thoroughfare to accomodate a little side street that might see 5% of the traffic that the main bridge would see. If that.As was stated earlier, the residents in the area are vocal, knowledgable, and in many cases wealthy. There are so many cases in Houston where a freeway split a neighborhood in two, with one side always seeming to get the shaft in the decades after. Think I10 through the Heights. Only recently has the south side started catching back up. For a long time it was a no-mans land. Think 45 north through the Heights. the east side of 45 is also just now starting to get back on it's feet.59 in that area has Montrose to the north and Southamton to the south. When the freeway was first built back in the 50's, a lot of lobbying went on to make sure the two sides stayed connected. In the end I think this has been a benifit to the area. The residents realize this, which is why you see Graustark getting the bridge.So, to answer your question, it's really not silly at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Besides, they look cool, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Its economy of scale. Obviously the economics are on their side but I dont think this neighborhood is hurting because the next bridge was 400m to the west or 300m to the east.Common sense would dictate that the effort should be thrown behind the major crossing. It isnt. So it does "seem silly" in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeightsGuy Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I respectfully disagree. Common sense (and social responsibility) dictates that the more access you give over major thouroughfares in inner cities the better. The area along that stretch of 59 works as a single entity because of 1. numerous bridges linking the two sides and 2. no feeders.Contrast that with I10 between Shephard and Montrose/Studemont. There are only 4 bridges linking the two side of the freeway over a 2kilometer stretch. All fine and dandy when your in a car, but try walking or biking around in the area. The two sides are basically cut off from eachother. Add the feeders, and you create an extra block on both sides of the freeway that are distinctly pedestrian un-friendly.I lived on Castle Court for a while, and you may not notice it as you zip by, but people use those bridges, they jog, ride bikes, walk their dogs etc. It shows that people and freeways CAN co-exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowbrow Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Are we talking about compromising Montrose's throughput or shine? As in, is it not going to handle the traffic flow originally spec'd for or just less glamore in the design?My argument is only against slimming down throughput for this secondary artery. I'm not referencing aesthetics at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astro Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Seems silly to me to scale down the major thoroughfare to accomodate a little side street that might see 5% of the traffic that the main bridge would see. If that.I hope they like their bridge.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I kind of agree with this... I would have liked a nice "signature" bridge at Montrose that would stand out from the other bridges. Oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.