Greyhound Bus Station At 2121 Main St.

[IntheKnowHouston]

4 minutes ago, wilcal said:

I was tweeting about the Greyhound/McDonald's closings the other day and one of the HBJ writers liked my tweet, so I'm hoping for some proper reporting! Still have a gut feeling that the McD property is getting rebuilt. 

Let's hope. It would be great to read more about this in detail. 

[Houston19514]

57 minutes ago, IntheKnowHouston said:

I'm wondering why Houston Chronicle has yet to report on the property changings hands last month and the recent sales listing? 

.. Are you new here?  😉 The wonder would be if the Chronicle did report on it.

[IntheKnowHouston]

20 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

.. Are you new here?  😉 The wonder would be if the Chronicle did report on it.

You're right. 

[HouTXRanger]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:40 AM, j_cuevas713 said:

I've said this before, the "haphazard" approach to development Houston has shown over the course of the past 30+ years has actually laid really nice groundwork for denser urban development.

Now that I've had to move to the Bay Area for work, people look at me like I'm an alien for talking about all the good qualities of central Houston's urban fabric. It might not be "world class" yet (just wait a few decades) but at least it doesn't take ten years to permit one affordable housing complex . . . .

Can you link that video you mentioned? I'd like to take a peek.

[Brooklyn173]

I, like others on this forum, am very excited about the potential of the 'bus corner' becoming something nicer. Even grander. But two things come to mind:

1. There are a bunch of other already empty blocks in the larger area. A rough count for a corridor from Clay St south to Stuart St, 2 blocks east/west of Main Street, finds that there are nine mostly empty full city blocks. A couple are used for parking, one has a vacant bank, an empty CVS and the others are just dirt. This does not count the bus depots/McDonald sites or the soon to be relocated Cadillac dealer. There is already plenty of supply if there is a real demand. I'm not sure if the bus terminals' availability will change that dynamic.

2. Having said that, I wonder if a decision has been made that only the well connected are aware of, reflected by all the recent activity near the Pierce Elevated. Is that about to come down and the smart money is getting ready for a redevelopment surge? I'd be OK with that.

I won't be around in "a few decades" but I am happy with hopes of a quicker, even modest, improvement.

[kennyc05]

16 minutes ago, Brooklyn173 said:

I, like others on this forum, am very excited about the potential of the 'bus corner' becoming something nicer. Even grander. But two things come to mind:

1. There are a bunch of other already empty blocks in the larger area. A rough count for a corridor from Clay St south to Stuart St, 2 blocks east/west of Main Street, finds that there are nine mostly empty full city blocks. A couple are used for parking, one has a vacant bank, an empty CVS and the others are just dirt. This does not count the bus depots/McDonald sites or the soon to be relocated Cadillac dealer. There is already plenty of supply if there is a real demand. I'm not sure if the bus terminals' availability will change that dynamic.

2. Having said that, I wonder if a decision has been made that only the well connected are aware of, reflected by all the recent activity near the Pierce Elevated. Is that about to come down and the smart money is getting ready for a redevelopment surge? I'd be OK with that.

I won't be around in "a few decades" but I am happy with hopes of a quicker, even modest, improvement.

And the development in down to the ION 😏

[CREguy13]

1 hour ago, Brooklyn173 said:

I, like others on this forum, am very excited about the potential of the 'bus corner' becoming something nicer. Even grander. But two things come to mind:

1. There are a bunch of other already empty blocks in the larger area. A rough count for a corridor from Clay St south to Stuart St, 2 blocks east/west of Main Street, finds that there are nine mostly empty full city blocks. A couple are used for parking, one has a vacant bank, an empty CVS and the others are just dirt. This does not count the bus depots/McDonald sites or the soon to be relocated Cadillac dealer. There is already plenty of supply if there is a real demand. I'm not sure if the bus terminals' availability will change that dynamic.

2. Having said that, I wonder if a decision has been made that only the well connected are aware of, reflected by all the recent activity near the Pierce Elevated. Is that about to come down and the smart money is getting ready for a redevelopment surge? I'd be OK with that.

I won't be around in "a few decades" but I am happy with hopes of a quicker, even modest, improvement.

Your second point is the right take imo.  There's a really strong push on the elevated park, which would make everything within a few blocks of Pierce much more valuable immediately if plans become public.  I'm certainly in the camp of retaining the structure. The opportunities to integrate buildings at the park level whether it be office, MF, Condo, or hotel would be a game changer - in addition to activating the ground level below.

Central Houston badly wants this to happen.  Given the tremendous amount of wealth being made in this city right now (and no other big projects on the docket) they should be able to get private individual/corporate dollars secured for both this and the Eado Capped park... or at least that's the hope. Fingers crossed!

[j_cuevas713]

2 hours ago, HouTXRanger said:

Now that I've had to move to the Bay Area for work, people look at me like I'm an alien for talking about all the good qualities of central Houston's urban fabric. It might not be "world class" yet (just wait a few decades) but at least it doesn't take ten years to permit one affordable housing complex . . . .

Can you link that video you mentioned? I'd like to take a peek.

 

[wilcal]

32 minutes ago, CREguy13 said:

Your second point is the right take imo.  There's a really strong push on the elevated park, which would make everything within a few blocks of Pierce much more valuable immediately if plans become public.  I'm certainly in the camp of retaining the structure. The opportunities to integrate buildings at the park level whether it be office, MF, Condo, or hotel would be a game changer - in addition to activating the ground level below.

Central Houston badly wants this to happen.  Given the tremendous amount of wealth being made in this city right now (and no other big projects on the docket) they should be able to get private individual/corporate dollars secured for both this and the Eado Capped park... or at least that's the hope. Fingers crossed!

Of course, the city doesn't have anywhere near enough money to develop the cap parks or the elevated park.

You have to wonder where the city's priorities lay if there is only $XX millions.

My gut absolutely no inside info says that the elevated park would be last on the list. 

This is years-old memory, but it was my remembrance that the city would be swapping some of the land that they own in the East End for land under the Pierce Elevated, so there is an opportunity for the city to lease/sell some of that land to fund an elevated park. Of course, the Highline is the parallel, which has direct connections to the trail from adjacent buildings. 

[CREguy13]

10 minutes ago, wilcal said:

Of course, the city doesn't have anywhere near enough money to develop the cap parks or the elevated park.

You have to wonder where the city's priorities lay if there is only $XX millions.

My gut absolutely no inside info says that the elevated park would be last on the list. 

This is years-old memory, but it was my remembrance that the city would be swapping some of the land that they own in the East End for land under the Pierce Elevated, so there is an opportunity for the city to lease/sell some of that land to fund an elevated park. Of course, the Highline is the parallel, which has direct connections to the trail from adjacent buildings. 

That's my point.  These have always been private projects and I think they can raise the funds relatively quickly.  Never let dollars that want to find a home remain on the sidelines..

[j_cuevas713]

2 hours ago, CREguy13 said:

That's my point.  These have always been private projects and I think they can raise the funds relatively quickly.  Never let dollars that want to find a home remain on the sidelines..

That's been one of my biggest issues with this whole 45 re-route. Those renders showing the cap park, etc is all conceptual with no source of funding.

Edited January 18, 2023 by j_cuevas713

[kennyc05]

3 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

That's been one of my biggest issues with this whole 45 re-route. Those renders showing the cap park, etc is all conceptual with no source of funding.

Yeah but there is a ton of money in this city I think it'll definitely happen.

[Houston19514]

13 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

That's been one of my biggest issues with this whole 45 re-route. Those renders showing the cap park, etc is all conceptual with no source of funding.

TxDOT has made it very clear from the beginning and over and over and over, that they are not funding the cap parks.  

[CREguy13]

2 hours ago, kennyc05 said:

Yeah but there is a ton of money in this city I think it'll definitely happen.

1000%. Too many downtown corporations, local foundations, and uber-wealthy Houstonians that will be interested in naming rights and want to play a significant role in a transformational project for the city.  

[kennyc05]

1 hour ago, CREguy13 said:

1000%. Too many downtown corporations, local foundations, and uber-wealthy Houstonians that will be interested in naming rights and want to play a significant role in a transformational project for the city.  

Yep after I win the Powerball tonight I may even contribute! 😁

[houstontexasjack]

On 1/18/2023 at 3:35 PM, j_cuevas713 said:

That's been one of my biggest issues with this whole 45 re-route. Those renders showing the cap park, etc is all conceptual with no source of funding.

My understanding is that TXDOT is paying for the construction of the deck over the freeway. Landscaping, other items would need to be funded separately, but the deck is the big-ticket expense.

 

Edit: Page 5 of the Record of Decision references the cap construction:

“The Selected Alternative provides a structural “cap” over the proposed depressed lanes of I‐45 and US 59/I‐69 from approximately Commerce Street to Lamar Street. There would also be a structural cap over the depressed lanes of US 59/I‐69 between approximately Main Street and Fannin Street, and in the area of the Caroline Street/Wheeler Street intersection. Future use of the structural cap areas for another purpose would require additional development and funding by entities other than TxDOT.”

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs14/NHHIP_RecordofDecision/NHHIP Record of Decision - Body.pdf

 

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by houstontexasjack

[004n063]

1 hour ago, houstontexasjack said:

My understanding is that TXDOT is paying for the construction of the deck over the freeway. Landscaping, other items would need to be funded separately, but the deck is the big-ticket expense.

 

Edit: Page 5 of the Record of Decision references the cap construction:

“The Selected Alternative provides a structural “cap” over the proposed depressed lanes of I‐45 and US 59/I‐69 from approximately Commerce Street to Lamar Street. There would also be a structural cap over the depressed lanes of US 59/I‐69 between approximately Main Street and Fannin Street, and in the area of the Caroline Street/Wheeler Street intersection. Future use of the structural cap areas for another purpose would require additional development and funding by entities other than TxDOT.”

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs14/NHHIP_RecordofDecision/NHHIP Record of Decision - Body.pdf

 

 

Is it just the cap that ends at Lamar? Or will the highway reemerge there as well? (Would be weird, since it goes right back below grade like three blocks later...)

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

My understanding is that TXDOT is paying for the construction of the deck over the freeway. Landscaping, other items would need to be funded separately, but the deck is the big-ticket expense.

 

Edit: Page 5 of the Record of Decision references the cap construction:

“The Selected Alternative provides a structural “cap” over the proposed depressed lanes of I‐45 and US 59/I‐69 from approximately Commerce Street to Lamar Street. There would also be a structural cap over the depressed lanes of US 59/I‐69 between approximately Main Street and Fannin Street, and in the area of the Caroline Street/Wheeler Street intersection. Future use of the structural cap areas for another purpose would require additional development and funding by entities other than TxDOT.”

http://www.ih45northandmore.com/docs14/NHHIP_RecordofDecision/NHHIP Record of Decision - Body.pdf

 

 

TxDOT’s contribution to the park by funding the structural cap is nothing to sneeze at.

Anyone who thinks that TxDOT should fund the actual park itself, and that the absence of funding is somehow an indicator that it won’t be built, just has zero idea how these things work. I wouldn’t be surprised if TxDOT can’t even fund such things legally as part of its enabling legislation. Even if it could, I can understand from a policy perspective why they wouldn’t want to get into that business. The federal monies going to this project are restricted, too. I think the Infrastructure Bill may provide some more flexible funding options.

[kennyc05]

6 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

TxDOT’s contribution to the park by funding the structural cap is nothing to sneeze at.

Anyone who thinks that TxDOT should fund the actual park itself, and that the absence of funding is somehow an indicator that it won’t be built, just has zero idea how these things work. I wouldn’t be surprised if TxDOT can’t even fund such things legally as part of its enabling legislation. Even if it could, I can understand from a policy perspective why they wouldn’t want to get into that business. The federal monies going to this project are restricted, too. I think the Infrastructure Bill may provide some more flexible funding options.

I wonder why they didn't mention the Almeda cap.

[Houston19514]

On 1/20/2023 at 12:02 PM, kennyc05 said:

I wonder why they didn't mention the Almeda cap.

I don’t think there is an Almeda cap

[kennyc05]

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I don’t think there is an Almeda cap

Well near Almeda.

 

 

I think you're right I'm calling the Cleburne cap the Almeda cap. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by kennyc05

[Houston19514]

5 hours ago, kennyc05 said:

Well near Almeda.

 

 

I think you're right I'm calling the Cleburne cap the Almeda cap. 

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that is from an earlier plan and that cap was deleted from the FEIS/ROD plan.  I don't think Cleburne even goes over the freeway in the FEIS/ROD plan.

[004n063]

30 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that is from an earlier plan and that cap was deleted from the FEIS/ROD plan.  I don't think Cleburne even goes over the freeway in the FEIS/ROD plan.

So will it continue to go under? Or will it dead-end? The latter would be kind of a pain for 3W-Midtown/Ion access...

Edit: "it" being Cleburne

Edited January 22, 2023 by 004n063

[kennyc05]

36 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

I'm not 100% certain, but I think that is from an earlier plan and that cap was deleted from the FEIS/ROD plan.  I don't think Cleburne even goes over the freeway in the FEIS/ROD plan.

Yeah you might be right but I thought it was still in the plans.

[Houston19514]

Interactive map here:  https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

[004n063]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Interactive map here:  https://www.txdot.gov/nhhip.html

I, uh, I mean I totally understood that map and all, but maybe you could like explain it for like other people who like maybe didn't?

(But seriously - what is happening to Cleburne?)

[houstontexasjack]

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I, uh, I mean I totally understood that map and all, but maybe you could like explain it for like other people who like maybe didn't?

(But seriously - what is happening to Cleburne?)

Cleburne is not included in TXDOT’s current plans. I do not think it will end up being included. The City of Houston’s MOU contains language that “TXDOT remains committed to evaluating the feasibility” of extending Cleburne across I-69, among a number of endeavours:

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/docs_pdfs/NHHIP-TxDOT-COH-MOU-Executed-English.pdf

(see (e)(iii)(3) on pg. 12 of the attached)

That’s very nice lawyerese to say something nice without any binding commitment to it.

 

[004n063]

7 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

Cleburne is not included in TXDOT’s current plans. I do not think it will end up being included. The City of Houston’s MOU contains language that “TXDOT remains committed to evaluating the feasibility” of extending Cleburne across I-69, among a number of endeavours:

https://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/docs_pdfs/NHHIP-TxDOT-COH-MOU-Executed-English.pdf

(see (e)(iii)(3) on pg. 12 of the attached)

That’s very nice lawyerese to say something nice without any binding commitment to it.

 

But what does "not included" mean? Currently, it runs under 59 - will that segment of 59 remain elevated? Or will it be below grade but eliminate the Cleburne crossing?

[Houston19514]

14 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I, uh, I mean I totally understood that map and all, but maybe you could like explain it for like other people who like maybe didn't?

(But seriously - what is happening to Cleburne?)

 

3 hours ago, 004n063 said:

But what does "not included" mean? Currently, it runs under 59 - will that segment of 59 remain elevated? Or will it be below grade but eliminate the Cleburne crossing?

So... I'm thinking you didn't understand the map.  No worries. I'm happy to explain it for like people who like maybe didn't understand it.  😇

I-69 will be below grade at Cleburne.  In the plan shown on the interactive map (which I believe is the current FEIS/ROD plan), the Cleburne crossing is eliminated.   But it is not accurate to say Cleburne dead ends; Just a very minor detour.  I recall reading about this when they made these changes earlier in the process, but don't recall the exact details.  Something about the roadway geometry, maybe the I-69 roadway is not quite deep enough at that exact point...  I'll see if I can dig out that information.

But it's not as if Cleburne is a major thoroughfare.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Houston19514

[004n063]

2 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

 

So... I'm thinking you didn't understand the map.  No worries. I'm happy to explain it for like people who like maybe didn't understand it.  😇

I-69 will be below grade at Cleburne.  In the plan shown on the interactive map (which I believe is the current FEIS/ROD plan), the Cleburne crossing is eliminated.   But it is not accurate to say Cleburne dead ends; Just a very minor detour.  I recall reading about this when they made these changes earlier in the process, but don't recall the exact details.  Something about the roadway geometry, maybe the I-69 roadway is not quite deep enough at that exact point...  I'll see if I can dig out that information.

But it's not as if Cleburne is a major thoroughfare.

Yep, definitely didn't understand the map! You're right that Cleburne is not a major thoroughfare, but it's the best bike route from Midtown to 3rd Ward. 

Just gonna have to manifest that Wheeler Bikeway, I guess!