Jump to content

METRORail Central Station Main


Eiknujrac

Recommended Posts

Had the idea for a grand station never existed, nobody would be complaining. Hey, at least it is saving taxpayer money. The most important thing about the rail is its functionality anyway.

But they are still spending 1.6 million. And they lost out on the 600,000 grant from a Downtown organization.

Are both those dollar mounts referencing only this station?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not too bummed honestly.  A signature station at street level would just look weird and out of place.  It would be overpowering. 

 

It would be a lot better if it were all underground, with a mega transfer station with different levels.  They could have done something amazing with that.

i agree it could have looked a little out of place, but its the exchange hub for 2 light rail lines. lots of people are going to utilize this station, much more so than any other station i would imagine. it would be a shame for it to be just another light rail station.

i LOVE your second idea. they could of had escalators where the streets are, going down to the tunnel level, with tunnel transfers to the east end lines and more escalators by those stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is some hope.. at first it sounds like another basic station, but goes on to give hope for something unique.



"Unwilling to accept that added expense, board members approved a proposal by Jim Robinson to spend enough only for a basic canopy.

"I don't think the standard designs look bad, frankly," Robinson said.

Downtown Management District officials will not contribute to a basic station, so Metro still estimates it will pay $450,000 more than staff budgeted. Spieler said he hopes Metro can work out a deal to spend $1.05 million while agreeing to a design that would attract a contribution from the downtown district, for a total cost of $1.65 million."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone still think that it is a good idea to give these jokers a few billion dollars worth of heavy commuter rail to plan and build?  If current trajectories continue, I think we're going to get to a point in the next couple of decades where we will genuinely need it to continue growing. Instead, we get metrocare.gov over and over again.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design would not have looked good at all in front of the Gulf Building, IMHO. Not too sad it's been scrapped, considering that's the most graceful historic building in the whole city.

 

And the Metro guy is right, the existing stations don't look bad. In certain situations, less is more.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I disagree.  I think this glorified canopy is one of the items in our greater architectural repertoier as a city - that is sorely lacking.  That is: we do not have enough smaller scale built environment that could be considered "avant garde" in this town.  Someone posted a list of fountains in and around town recently... while not a fountain, it does, in a way, engage on the same scale.  The Gulf Building (like most skyscrapers) engages on a much different / broader level, and the greater affect of the Gulf Building wouldn't be lost as the eyes wander up towards the crown...  As such, the juxtaposition of these two contrasting architectural styles wouldn't harm, or hurt either one for the sake of the other.  Rather, I believe that the one would enhance the other, and vice versa.  I feel like Snoetta's design (and others like it) would have helped create a context of architectural discussion about the mundane, or, objects of the urban street environment that are so common in places like London, New York, Berlin etc. yet so very much lacking here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design would not have looked good at all in front of the Gulf Building, IMHO. Not too sad it's been scrapped, considering that's the most graceful historic building in the whole city.

 

And the Metro guy is right, the existing stations don't look bad. In certain situations, less is more.

The current design is boring ass hell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree it could have looked a little out of place, but its the exchange hub for 2 light rail lines. lots of people are going to utilize this station, much more so than any other station i would imagine. it would be a shame for it to be just another light rail station.

i LOVE your second idea. they could of had escalators where the streets are, going down to the tunnel level, with tunnel transfers to the east end lines and more escalators by those stations.

 

Underground would have been best.  Less traffic disruption, and better access to the tunnel system underground as well, which is what the majority of people would like to access their buildings from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to know how are people not lossing their job in any other org that screwed up this bad people would be shown the door... Second how the hell do you go 19 months before looking at the math ??? How do you award a contract without working out the math  even ???  Like I said before this is not new " after the debacle that was buy american .. parker was suppose to have cleaned house.. Instead in the last few months we have learned

 

*. The new trains are running over budget and have not been delivered

* The tunnel that is suppose to go under the tracts has not been dug(how much do you want to bet that we will get annocemnet soon that  the line will be delayed because of that)

*and now a scaled back rail station due to the fact that morons in metro cant count

 

When asked what happend your intrem CEO could only say" we dont know?" WTH you mean you do not know how tax payers money could have been pissed off ?  If I was parker my only follow up question would be" what time will your resignation be on my desk?

 

I think parker knew this for a while and had the board sit on it during the lection to avoid giving her oppents ammo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed.. they are "nice" looking, but very plain. 

how does Dallas get the money for crap like this...

StationSquare17.jpg?10b6ef

and we can barely afford this...?

magnolia-park-metro-station.jpg

could someone please answer me that?

 

This plays into my theory about Houston, we are so ant-dallas that we without think about it go in the other direction

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not impressed with that design in dallass lol... we need something large, and bold... something that stand out, not a stupid canopy... THIS IS HOUSTON! We do things big in this city!

I'm not "impressed" with it either (personally it's way too flashy and over the top for me) but you can't deny that station cost a lot more than one of our basic stations. How does Dart manage to build crap like that when metro can barely build it's basic stations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not "impressed" with it either (personally it's way too flashy and over the top for me) but you can't deny that station cost a lot more than one of our basic stations. How does Dart manage to build crap like that when metro can barely build it's basic stations?

 

Because METRO has been highly financially mismanaged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not "impressed" with it either (personally it's way too flashy and over the top for me) but you can't deny that station cost a lot more than one of our basic stations. How does Dart manage to build crap like that when metro can barely build it's basic stations?

 

DART gets more funding than METRO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I disagree.  I think this glorified canopy is one of the items in our greater architectural repertoier as a city - that is sorely lacking.  That is: we do not have enough smaller scale built environment that could be considered "avant garde" in this town.  Someone posted a list of fountains in and around town recently... while not a fountain, it does, in a way, engage on the same scale.  The Gulf Building (like most skyscrapers) engages on a much different / broader level, and the greater affect of the Gulf Building wouldn't be lost as the eyes wander up towards the crown...  As such, the juxtaposition of these two contrasting architectural styles wouldn't harm, or hurt either one for the sake of the other.  Rather, I believe that the one would enhance the other, and vice versa.  I feel like Snoetta's design (and others like it) would have helped create a context of architectural discussion about the mundane, or, objects of the urban street environment that are so common in places like London, New York, Berlin etc. yet so very much lacking here.

 

Thoughtful post. To answer your points, I am not thinking of the crown of the Gulf Building, I am thinking of its entrance at street level. Go stand across the street sometime and look at it. Just the first floor. Now imagine half of that blocked out by these shards of concrete or whatever they are. It's not appropriate.

 

I think we are showing our "catch up to the big boys" mentality by being so desperate for anything exciting and avant garde from a big-name firm. It would look very nice elsewhere, maybe down by the new Hilcorp building or if there were light rail on Smith Street it would be ideal, but not here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This...

 

 

 

and this...

 

 

 

do not go together.

They are very different, that is for sure.

I still like the station concept, and think it would be "architecturally fun" and "whimsical" to witness such a mundane structure in such a formal "no frills" kind of town like Houston come to life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...