Ion District In Midtown

[Ross]

1 hour ago, jmitch94 said:

Not driving does not equal only walking. No one is suggesting people would be walking from the Woodlands.

Then how do people from the Woodlands get there? Park and Ride from TW is minimal. There will always be demand for driving. For instance, here's Mannheim, Germany, the area where there are a ton of restaurants and shops. Super walkable. There are a number of large underground parking structures for the people who drive in https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mannheim,+Germany/@49.4896585,8.4665344,845m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4797cc24518e3f45:0xb1e4fe7aa406e687!8m2!3d49.4874592!4d8.4660395 

London has dozens of large underground parking structures. So does Paris.

[Ross]

5 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

I would just add: 

1) Not building a gargantuan parking garage doesn't make it impossible to drive. Just potentially less convenient. Kind of like how building a gargantuan parking garage doesn't make it impossible to walk, bike, or take the rail - but it does seem likely to make (or at least leave) the first two options fairly unpleasant and unsafe. 

2) I would argue (with Ross, not you), that no development - and certainly not one that's just a handful of commercial properties - serves the whole Houston metro area. But when you build around the idea of suburban access, you tend to preserve the lack of local access, since car traffic is the main enemy of pedestrian and especially bicycle viability.

 

In other words, there's an element of kicking the can further on down the road.

The bolded simply isn't true. Providing access for cars does not destroy pedestrian or bicycle access. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this city who will not go somewhere they can't drive. Some of them run businesses. If they can't drive to the location, then they won't locate their business there. Building a garage provides options.

[004n063]

1 hour ago, Ross said:

The bolded simply isn't true. Providing access for cars does not destroy pedestrian or bicycle access.

It doesn't destroy it, but it makes it harder and likely less effective, since it creates an additional point of conflict.

 

But honestly, while the garage started the conversation, it is not (as I've said several times) a major issue for me. The part that I am legitimately disappointed in (or will be, if the renderings hold true) is the fact that there doesn't appear to be anything better than a deadly painted bicycle gutter in the renderings (Fannin and/or San Jacinto would be a great olace for another cycle track like the one on Bagby, or at least a protected lane like on Austin; those two streets are absolutely terrifying to bike on), and that there doesn't appear to be any intention to pedestrianize Eagle (from San Jacinto to Main is all you'd need).

Neither of those would significantly degrade access for people who choose to drive, but they'd hugely improve the experience for people on foot or bike.

And yes, I realize that those would not ultimately be up to the developer, but at least the renderings could have been bolder. They did, after all, draw in two painted bicycle abbatoirs (even a contraflow one! .) on Fannin, where currently there is nothing.

Look, here's my most selfish perspective: As someone who lives a bit far from this location for it to really be a casual walk (not in this heat, anyway), but much too close to justify driving, bike is my only logical option. But with the current infrastructure in the area, it just isn't safe. And nothing that I've seen indicates any commitment to changing that. 

And that's fine; they don't need to serve me. But I also don't need to be impressed.

They've taken an absolute abomination of surface parking and are turning most of it into productive, moderately attractive space. It looks like, at worst, it'll be a bit like Downtown, which is to say, a hell of a lot better than the Medical Center or (god forbid) Uptown. So I can thank my lucky stars for that. 

I just don't see anything particularly innovative about it.

Anyway, I think I've said all I have to say about this and feel a little bad for anyone who has been scrolling through this thread hoping for updates, so I'm going to disengage. I understand your points, and they're not wrong. I just think the gamble would have been worthwhile.

[samagon]

On 7/22/2022 at 8:32 PM, Ross said:

The drive most places culture is never going to go away. There is no way to build enough public transport to cover Houston. Even large European cities have massive car usage. My colleagues in London at a couple of jobs all owned cars and mostly drove to work. Especially to the office that was a mile from the nearest Underground station.

anecdotes are great fun, but rarely are they reality.

for all of the UK (this includes little rural villages with no access to public transit) 58% of trips are made by cars.

according to the same site, only 27% of London commuters took the car.

https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a26

no one is telling you that you can't drive a car, no one is telling your buddies in London they can't drive a car, the option should always exist, that's the point, more options is always better.

compare the London stat to Houston, over 90% drive, we have no other viable option.

https://kinder.rice.edu/2017/05/01/houston-has-long-been-a-car-city-today-residents-say-theyre-seeking-something-else

so yeah, your buddies in London may commute, but they are the minority.

Edited July 25, 2022 by samagon

[editor]

On 7/22/2022 at 8:32 PM, Ross said:

In 2001, my care was flooded by Allison, and I took the bus to work for 6 weeks. That turned a 15 minute commute each way into a 45 minute commute each way

This is not really a very good argument.  You're trying to compare your experience two decades ago with the situation today.  Life has changed.  Houston has changed.  Houston had exactly zero light rail in 2001.

It sucks that you can't make it to the Ion District by train or bus in a reasonable amount of time. But guess what — plenty of other people can, myself included.  Based on my two trips driving to the Fannin Flower Market next door, and the dozens of times I've taken the train to the Medical Center, it's faster for me to get to the Ion District by train than by car.  So my anecdote cancels out your anecdote.

Moreover, just because something doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.  You chose to live where you are.  The people who run the Ion District chose to be where they are.   Life is not always convenient.  I'd live to visit Beard Papa's, but it's way out west.  I don't blame Metro for not having a train that goes there. I just accept that in life, not everything is designed or intended for every single person.

[mfastx]

I don't mind a parking garage as long as it's well engrained within the surrounding area and offers some retail or something. 

[Ross]

25 minutes ago, editor said:

This is not really a very good argument.  You're trying to compare your experience two decades ago with the situation today.  Life has changed.  Houston has changed.  Houston had exactly zero light rail in 2001.

It sucks that you can't make it to the Ion District by train or bus in a reasonable amount of time. But guess what — plenty of other people can, myself included.  Based on my two trips driving to the Fannin Flower Market next door, and the dozens of times I've taken the train to the Medical Center, it's faster for me to get to the Ion District by train than by car.  So my anecdote cancels out your anecdote.

Moreover, just because something doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.  You chose to live where you are.  The people who run the Ion District chose to be where they are.   Life is not always convenient.  I'd live to visit Beard Papa's, but it's way out west.  I don't blame Metro for not having a train that goes there. I just accept that in life, not everything is designed or intended for every single person.

In 2001, I lived in Midtown and worked in Bellaire. I had to walk across the under construction light rail to get to the bus stop. In 2022, if I still lived in Midtown and worked in Bellaire, I would still have to walk across the light rail, now running, to get to the bus stop, and would have to take the same bus that would take the same amount of time. Nothing has changed in that respect.

We now live in the Greater Heights area, so not that far from Downtown. It is pretty easy to get anywhere in town by car. By bus, not so much.

My response was to a claim that providing a parking garage at Ion wasn't "innovative". Providing parking is a necessity in Houston for a project like Ion, otherwise the number of people that will visit or use the space will be far smaller. The amount of needed parking is probably smaller than it would be for a Downtown high rise, but it's still needed.

[samagon]

2 hours ago, Ross said:

Providing parking is a necessity in Houston for a project like Ion.

this is without a doubt an absolutely true statement. which is both funny and sad.

today, not providing some level of parking is pretty damaging in Houston.

hopefully, at some point in the future, we (we as a society) demand better.

[004n063]

39 minutes ago, samagon said:

this is without a doubt an absolutely true statement. which is both funny and sad.

today, not providing some level of parking is pretty damaging in Houston.

hopefully, at some point in the future, we (we as a society) demand better.

Yeah, with the Ion being (hypothetically) a regional job center, I can accept that the parking garage is a necessity.

What we really need to make the shift to multimodality is the smaller-scale, more neighborhood-oriented businesses, organizations, and smaller-scale housing developments to be a) exempted from minimum parking mandates, b) lightly disincentivized from building parking, and c) heavily disincentivized from building surface parking. 

Do A first, then C, and then see if B is necessary.

[Houston19514]

31 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

Yeah, with the Ion being (hypothetically) a regional job center, I can accept that the parking garage is a necessity.

What we really need to make the shift to multimodality is the smaller-scale, more neighborhood-oriented businesses, organizations, and smaller-scale housing developments to be a) exempted from minimum parking mandates, b) lightly disincentivized from building parking, and c) heavily disincentivized from building surface parking. 

Do A first, then C, and then see if B is necessary.

The Ion District already has no minimum parking requirements.

[004n063]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

The Ion District already has no minimum parking requirements.

Yes I know. But since it sees itself as a major regional job center (in a city/region where lots of people don't expect to live near their jobs or take public transit), it sees the construction of a parking garage as a recruiting necessity, as well as a convenience for shoppers/diners/etc. in the general area.

Removing parking requirements for, say, restaurants/taquerias, grocery & convenience stories, gyms (for cryin out loud!), pharmacies, small offices, etc. would remove an unnecessary burden from a lot of small businesses, which would (or at least could) lead to a lot more "fabric" in the non-deed-restricted neighborhoods over the long term.

Edited July 25, 2022 by 004n063
Typo

[aachor]

The hard reality is that Houston just doesn't have the density to make robust mass transit entirely practical yet. If you look internationally at cities where it does make sense, you'll see much higher densities. 

I don't think mass transit is entirely a "build it and they will come" sort of proposition. It certainly does spur a degree of development to lay down a light rail line. I'm certain that much of the development in Midtown is because of the existence of the light rail. 

However, my wife and I have been searching for housing for months. With her working in the Medical Center, finding something within a couple of blocks of the rail was something we were indeed interested in. However, we did not like the very limited options we found. 

Houston has been and still is a low-density city. Development inside the loop in the last decade has begun to change that, but it's not nearly enough for most people to want to give up a car or two. I don't know that simply adding mass transit will spur further development on its own at this point. My wife and I would have liked to have found a condo inside a mile from the Medical Center. But there were no options suitable for us. For now, we will be dependent on our car.

If other incentives would work in concert with transit to spur density- to build more mid and high-rise housing close to where people work and shop and eat, then I think transit solutions would be more obvious and straightforward. The ridership would be there. The demand would be there.

I wish that the state would reexamine how property taxes are structured. For example: Right now, taxes are based simply on the property's assessed value. I think there should be separate assessments for the land and for improvements, with the land being taxed at a higher rate than improvements in major cities. A restructuring like this could incentivize developers to maximize improvements on more limited tracts of land because it would result in low-density developments like parking lots being taxed at a higher rate than high-density developments. This would also address some of the negative externalities that low-density development imposes on city infrastructure.

And, I'm sure that a plan like this could be developed in a revenue-neutral way so as to not further increase the high-property tax burden that Texas already has. Freezing tax assessments on a property 10 years after major developments could negate the downsides of gentrification that this sort of restructuring would spur.

Just a thought...something like this would obviously be a low priority for a legislature that is too busy fighting politics.

[samagon]

9 hours ago, aachor said:

The hard reality is that Houston just doesn't have the density to make robust mass transit entirely practical yet. If you look internationally at cities where it does make sense, you'll see much higher densities. 

statements like this just aren't true. someone told you it was true, and you believed them. Houston has enough density to support mass transit, what it needs is enough people who WANT to use mass transit.

9 hours ago, aachor said:

I don't think mass transit is entirely a "build it and they will come" sort of proposition. It certainly does spur a degree of development to lay down a light rail line. I'm certain that much of the development in Midtown is because of the existence of the light rail. 

you certainly are right, you cannot inspire people to use mass transit just by building mass transit.

the people have to demand access to alternative forms of transit than single occupant vehicles, and then you have to expect it will take at least a generation or two for a mostly complete system to be implemented.

you are also right that density will follow mass transit. the density along the red line (south) is pretty spectacular after nearly 20 years. the green line density seems to be coming in well, it's been in service for 7 years now, we can check in again in 13 years and see if it's done a similar pattern as the red line.

not sure about the purple line, I get over to UH frequently, and there are lots of new developments near the stops by UH. I don't know about the rest of the line.

the thing is, over and over again, the people of this city have voted for fixed guideway mass transit, so the people do want it, and that's why we're getting the University BRT, I wish it was a full LRT, but that will come in time, I suppose.

your other points are solid, the state needs to take a look at how land is taxed and shift the burden based on different factors than just value. and certainly, politicians who want to retain their office aren't interested in tax revisions, they are interested in things that invoke the passions of their constituents. term limits for all.

Edited July 26, 2022 by samagon

[004n063]

You are both right, in a sense.

The reality is that where you live, where you work, where high-quality transit is, and where abundant housing is are all high-friction variables. For most people, that means a car will remain a necessity for some time.

And obviously, being right on the red line adds value to a place, so I can understand feeling priced out of the red line catchment. To that end, it it'd be great to see more large-scale residential developments within a few blocks of the red line. But honestly, I think the high prices are just because most of the developments are new luxury condos and rentals - they're expensive because they're expensive. New is rarely cheap. In other words, there's not a shortage of homes along the red line (or the green or purple, for that matter) - especially if you're not trying to buy a detached single-family home. 

But all three current lines have shown that transit does spur development and densification here, just like in any other city.

That said, Houston is more spread out than any city with a high transit modeshare, and you'd need to add literally dozens of lines for it to become competitive with even an east coast city (to say nothing of a European city) in that regard, at least in the short term. But...

A) Adding just a few more lines along critical corridors (Westheimer/Elgin), Washington, Montrose, Shepherd, Hillcroft, Bellaire, plus extend the Green line down Broadway) and eliminating minimum parking requirements within a half-mile of all stops would go a long way toward changing the development patterns in Houston over the next 30+ years, to the point where wanting to live near a line is the market-defining norm, and adding new developments to the exurban fringe becomes increasingly risky.

B) If the goal is to reduce car-dependency in an already-sprawling and deeply car-dependent city, focusing exclusively on transit-only commutes may be the wrong first step. If most people in the city still drive to work, but are able to comfortably walk or bike for groceries, restaurants, coffee, shopping, entertainment, etc., then that would be a huge step forward for the city, and as The Heights and Montrose and Midtown have shown, that can happen here (especially when it isn't summer).

[004n063]

10 hours ago, aachor said:

I wish that the state would reexamine how property taxes are structured. For example: Right now, taxes are based simply on the property's assessed value. I think there should be separate assessments for the land and for improvements, with the land being taxed at a higher rate than improvements in major cities. A restructuring like this could incentivize developers to maximize improvements on more limited tracts of land because it would result in low-density developments like parking lots being taxed at a higher rate than high-density developments. This would also address some of the negative externalities that low-density development imposes on city infrastructure.

And, I'm sure that a plan like this could be developed in a revenue-neutral way so as to not further increase the high-property tax burden that Texas already has. Freezing tax assessments on a property 10 years after major developments could negate the downsides of gentrification that this sort of restructuring would spur.

Just a thought...something like this would obviously be a low priority for a legislature that is too busy fighting politics.

I completely agree with this. I feel like Houston is lowkey a very Georgist city already. Might as well be the first one to go full-LVT.

[77002er]

11 hours ago, aachor said:

I wish that the state would reexamine how property taxes are structured. For example: Right now, taxes are based simply on the property's assessed value. I think there should be separate assessments for the land and for improvements, with the land being taxed at a higher rate than improvements in major cities.

In a way it already is ..... the VALUE of the land are segregated out, and if the land values go up due to location desirability then the taxes go up.  Unfortunately, the desirability of being inside the loop has been dropping or stagnant for a decade or more compared to the Houston suburbs where most people look to buy for better schools and/or larger yards/houses for the same money.  Increasing land taxes inside the city will only make things worse as it will continue to drive people out.

[aachor]

15 minutes ago, 77002er said:

Increasing land taxes inside the city will only make things worse as it will continue to drive people out.

That would be an issue if the tax was not structured properly.

If it was structured how I think it could be, you'd see a significant increase in tax rates on unused lots or lots with nothing but large parking lots. Almost identical tax rates on single-family housing on small lots, and a decrease in rates on multi-family development.

It would require some serious modeling to get it right. But at the end of the day, it's all math and data. It can be done.

The goal would be to make it revenue neutral while somewhat shifting the tax burden onto owners of undeveloped or underdeveloped lots.
 

Edited July 26, 2022 by aachor

[004n063]

26 minutes ago, 77002er said:

Unfortunately, the desirability of being inside the loop has been dropping or stagnant for a decade or more compared to the Houston suburbs where most people look to buy for better schools and/or larger yards/houses for the same money. 

What are you basing this on? It sounds both untrue and a bit self-contradictory.

[Luminare]

Oh lord. Another long extensive thread about mass transit in a thread that probably doesn't need it. I've been on this forum enough that I see the same conversation happen all the time with the same anecdotes, examples, and themes highlighted all the time. I've said this to others irl a number of times, but it goes without saying. The moment the train crowd, bike crowd, the walk crowd, etc... talk about removing cars, lessen cars, banning cars, changing cars in anyway you immediately loss the argument because the very people you are trying to convince or you need support for your cause is immediately going to either A) punch you in the face, or B) politely tell you to F-off, and you will lose that persons support forever. This is human nature, and its also key to understanding markets and business.

Unless you are a person that is an extreme control freak, or hell bent on power then there is no reason to ever turn this topic into a tribal issue. I just tell people to go to Germany. Germans love their cars. Germans love their trains. Germans love their bikes. Germans love their boats. Germans love their planes. Germans love their vehicle to get drunk...beer. I immediately learned from that experience that this whole debate was pointless because its possible to embrace all, maybe not at the same time, but if we simply made a national commitment to improve all modes of transit and service those a multiple levels in multiple ways and people found each alternative convenient for their needs then all manners of travel lead to success. Transport really is a "we can make our cake, and eat it too." Everyone always treats this as a zero sum game, and it doesn't have to be that way. So if your thoughts are...we need to get rid of X to do Y you should consider this, transit in all of its forms is about building connections. You might even say its about building "bridges". So it seems counter-intuitive to be burning bridges in the process. That's my 2 cents. I'm out.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Luminare

[jmitch94]

7 hours ago, 77002er said:

In a way it already is ..... the VALUE of the land are segregated out, and if the land values go up due to location desirability then the taxes go up.  Unfortunately, the desirability of being inside the loop has been dropping or stagnant for a decade or more compared to the Houston suburbs where most people look to buy for better schools and/or larger yards/houses for the same money.  Increasing land taxes inside the city will only make things worse as it will continue to drive people out.

What are you basing this on? Bing inside the loop is more desirable than its ever been. I saw recently that two thirds of Houston construction was inside the loop. 

[citykid09]

On 7/25/2022 at 11:51 PM, aachor said:

The hard reality is that Houston just doesn't have the density to make robust mass transit entirely practical yet. If you look internationally at cities where it does make sense, you'll see much higher densities. 

Well how do you explain Atlanta getting MARTA heavy rail transit in the 1970s? Houston had several chances for the same type of rail, but it’s careless leaders of the past chose to spend money on other things. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by citykid09

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

[hindesky]

Started setting on the second half of the garage.

 

[77002er]

On 7/26/2022 at 6:32 PM, jmitch94 said:

What are you basing this on? Bing inside the loop is more desirable than its ever been. I saw recently that two thirds of Houston construction was inside the loop. 

Perhaps your data only counted construction within the city limits ..... the metro suburbs, which are  mostly outside city limits (by design),  have been growing at almost an uncontrollable rate.

[august948]

On 7/26/2022 at 6:32 PM, jmitch94 said:

What are you basing this on? Bing inside the loop is more desirable than its ever been. I saw recently that two thirds of Houston construction was inside the loop. 

Population graph for the area inside the loop.  1960 was the high point.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/_images/population_decade.jpg

Courtesy of the City of Houston...http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/population.html

[004n063]

4 hours ago, august948 said:

Population graph for the area inside the loop.  1960 was the high point.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/_images/population_decade.jpg

Courtesy of the City of Houston...http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/population.html

Those are interesting data, but I don't think they actually refute the idea that densification is happening inside the loop. It's just that people tend not to realize how freakin big the loop is. We're talking about an area of nearly 100 square miles, with large areas that are underdeveloped (or purpose-built in a suburban layout like West U). 

In other words, the population within the loop is not evenly spread out, but fairly clustered around nodes and corridors, which is exactly what multimodal urbanization and rapid transit require in order to be effective. 

[samagon]

that picture of the inside the loop population is pretty useless without context. it's based on US census data (since it's every 10 years) so they should be able to provide some demographic context, and I mean specifically around age, and number of people in a home.

it doesn't change the actual numbers they provide, but it would add some context to help us unpack the single data point into some meaning.

right now it can be used to infer whatever anyone wants it to infer. if you want to show that inside the loop (ITL) isn't popular, all you need to do is point at the numbers and say 'see!'. if you want to show that ITL is more complicated you can say 'well, in the 50s and 60s all those homes were filled with baby boomers who were growing up in the homes of their parents, in the 70s those baby boomers moved out of the loop and had their own families, but the number of working age people who might take advantage of a more robust transit system inside the loop has probably grown since then.

so yeah, not too helpful, that data.

I'm not trying to infer anything from that data, just point out that without any further context, it's not at all valuable to show, or use as a means of proving a point.

Edited August 5, 2022 by samagon

[Texasota]

One of the issues with tracking population change inside the loop is that the NE quarter has had huge amounts of population loss. The complete destruction of the Lyons Ave commercial corridor and hollowing out of Fifth Ward is still being felt, even as the west side densifies, the near east transforms from industrial to residential, Magnolia Park has remained stable, and Riverside/Riverside Terrace/Washington Terrace remain stable. Plus the core of Third Ward hasn't been *that* much better off than Fifth Ward.

[BEES?!]

I need to go find the thread where it was posted, but I’m pretty sure the inner loop population is higher now than its original peak in the 60s. The page posted above was as of 2010. Since then there has been a lot of construction ITL. I think it hit 500k as of the most recent census.