I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[Big E]

On 1/12/2022 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Ewert said:

I cannot overstate how much I hate this idea. Yes, build high-rises all over downtown. I love them. But this is a once-in-a-century chance to reclaim a huge swath of green space walkable from downtown. Think Millennium Park in Chicago.

I mean, they could easily split parts of the cap between development and parkland/plazas. This cap will be long and wide, with plenty of room for both. It doesn't have to be an either/or decision.

[kennyc05]

On 1/12/2022 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Ewert said:

I cannot overstate how much I hate this idea. Yes, build high-rises all over downtown. I love them. But this is a once-in-a-century chance to reclaim a huge swath of green space walkable from downtown. Think Millennium Park in Chicago.

 

4 hours ago, Big E said:

I mean, they could easily split parts of the cap between development and parkland/plazas. This cap will be long and wide, with plenty of room for both. It doesn't have to be an either/or decision.

I like the idea of having it split up between development and plazas / parkland.

Edited January 15, 2022 by kennyc05

[texan]

On 1/12/2022 at 4:26 PM, Andrew Ewert said:

I cannot overstate how much I hate this idea. Yes, build high-rises all over downtown. I love them. But this is a once-in-a-century chance to reclaim a huge swath of green space walkable from downtown. Think Millennium Park in Chicago.

I don't necessarily hate this idea although I would much prefer the entirety of it be greenspace like the Rose Kennedy Greenway in Boston with high-rise development encouraged right up to the edge. I really like the city's vision shown in the following presentation.

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/nhhip/east/public-meeting-east-side.pdf

[Eastdwntwn]

All the tenants in all three buildings at the Lofts at the Ballpark will be out during the first quarter of this year. They are no longer taking new leases and stopped renewing early last year. The belief is that all three buildings will be demolished not just the one in the path of the expansion. Both sides of St. Emanuel.  

Edited January 19, 2022 by Eastdwntwn

[BEES?!]

On 1/12/2022 at 3:47 PM, BeerNut said:

Kinda off topic / on topic.  Saw this youtube video of where this guy ranked Freweay Lids/Caps/Decks in the USA.

 

That was really interesting! 

[H-Town Man]

On 1/6/2022 at 1:31 PM, Houston19514 said:

Where have you looked?   ;-)

Watch Downtown TIRZ board meetings, Houston First Corp board meetings, I think even Midtown TIRZ.

Please cite where the money has been appropriated by TxDOT for a freeway cap structure. 

 

[samagon]

20 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Please cite where the money has been appropriated by TxDOT for a freeway cap structure. 

 

TxDOT has always been very clear on this, someone else is going to have to pay.

many organizations have said they will pay, but I don't know that any of them have committed actual dollars.

[Luminare]

On 1/19/2022 at 1:09 PM, H-Town Man said:

Please cite where the money has been appropriated by TxDOT for a freeway cap structure. 

 

To my knowledge there isn't any for the cap itself, and they don't need too. They simply have to engineer the retaining walls before hand to bear the load among other things. This happens all the time with phased projects big and small. If the city is exhibiting to the state what they are considering then the engineers just need to over engineer these sections for what will be placed later. It is high in costs on the front end, and if there was a plan and executed at once then it would be cheaper, but it will allow for greater flexibility later. I don't understand this idea that if it isn't there now, right now, it won't ever be there. These things take time.

3 hours ago, samagon said:

TxDOT has always been very clear on this, someone else is going to have to pay.

many organizations have said they will pay, but I don't know that any of them have committed actual dollars.

Thats all which is required at the moment. Difficult to fully invest in a project when the basis for it hasn't put a shovel in the ground yet. The actual infrastructure needs to be approved and finally get underway. Once its a real project that will likely push people to further invest once they see its a reality. Again its a factor of time, and this needs time.

[Houston19514]

On 1/19/2022 at 2:09 PM, H-Town Man said:

Please cite where the money has been appropriated by TxDOT for a freeway cap structure. 

 

 

4 hours ago, samagon said:

TxDOT has always been very clear on this, someone else is going to have to pay.

many organizations have said they will pay, but I don't know that any of them have committed actual dollars.

See page 5 of the Record of Decision"

"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."

 

[ADCS]

On 1/19/2022 at 10:43 AM, Eastdwntwn said:

All the tenants in all three buildings at the Lofts at the Ballpark will be out during the first quarter of this year. They are no longer taking new leases and stopped renewing early last year. The belief is that all three buildings will be demolished not just the one in the path of the expansion. Both sides of St. Emanuel.  

Good. Stick construction means the demolition will likely be inexpensive for the buildings. That's going to be a prime location for highrise development, especially 2189 where you don't have to pay for a parking structure. Possibly a pair of slim residential/mixed uses?

[sapo2367]

TXDOT seems to have purchased all three blocks of Lofts at the Ballpark, so that would align with the news that all tenants are getting kicked out. I do hope though that this doesn't get mired in some sort of legal morass with an empty apartment building sitting there for an extended period of time. I could see that getting really run down and sketchy.

[Amlaham]

Have they technically started on segment 3 (downtown portion)? 

[mattyt36]

It's confusing to me why people would expect an advanced design or detailed funding plan for the cap park to be announced before the NHHIP itself has even gotten final approval--especially in the current political environment.

The City, the County, the Downtown District, the GHP, and other organizations have been working on this together for years and it is incorporated into each group's long-term plans.  The park can be funded from a variety of sources, including the TIRZ, HOT taxes, and direct City and County contributions before we even get into contributions from the private sector.

The ideas that some "big downtown machine" is pushing forward the NHHIP while not also working towards planning and funding the cap park are completely incongruous and entirely nonsensical.  If you buy into the former, it shouldn't require much mental exertion for you to leap to the latter.

[BEES?!]

9 hours ago, Amlaham said:

Have they technically started on segment 3 (downtown portion)? 

I don’t think so. 

[samagon]

On 1/22/2022 at 8:28 AM, Amlaham said:

Have they technically started on segment 3 (downtown portion)? 

last update was the Feds gave them very limited capability to do some things around the 59/288 area, and some stuff with i10, but that's it so far.

[j_cuevas713]

On 1/22/2022 at 12:22 PM, mattyt36 said:

It's confusing to me why people would expect an advanced design or detailed funding plan for the cap park to be announced before the NHHIP itself has even gotten final approval--especially in the current political environment.

The City, the County, the Downtown District, the GHP, and other organizations have been working on this together for years and it is incorporated into each group's long-term plans.  The park can be funded from a variety of sources, including the TIRZ, HOT taxes, and direct City and County contributions before we even get into contributions from the private sector.

The ideas that some "big downtown machine" is pushing forward the NHHIP while not also working towards planning and funding the cap park are completely incongruous and entirely nonsensical.  If you buy into the former, it shouldn't require much mental exertion for you to leap to the latter.

I have to disagree. While it's a no brainer in theory that a park will be built on the cap, all those sources of funding you mentioned are all speculation. For all we know that cap will sit empty for years until someone from the private sector moves forward on it. TxDOT doesn't care about how or when a park could be designed on the cap, it's all just an idea they are presenting to sell the highway project. At the end of the day their focus is another highway project, that's it. 

[mattyt36]

39 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I have to disagree. While it's a no brainer in theory that a park will be built on the cap, all those sources of funding you mentioned are all speculation. For all we know that cap will sit empty for years until someone from the private sector moves forward on it. TxDOT doesn't care about how or when a park could be designed on the cap, it's all just an idea they are presenting to sell the highway project. At the end of the day their focus is another highway project, that's it. 

The logic here . . .

No one is saying TxDOT is financing a park or even "cares about it" to begin with.

I think you're giving them too much credit if you even think they are presenting it as a way to "sell the highway project."

They're doing exactly what they are chartered and legally allowed to do with the funding sources they have.  More than likely they included those alternatives for the benefit of the local governmental agencies who are working towards funding them. 

Again, I'm not sure why this is any sort of "surprise" or any indication of ill intent or "shady dealings" on behalf of TxDOT. TxDOT has absolutely nothing to do with the cap park other than building the structure.  Even if they wanted to fund it, I'm not sure they legally could.  End of story.  There's no there there.  There's no grand conspiracy.  It is what it is, people.

What I am interested in is why on earth so many people think that and where it originated from.  That story had to come from somewhere, however nonsensical that it is.

Edited February 4, 2022 by mattyt36

[samagon]

On 2/4/2022 at 11:22 AM, j_cuevas713 said:

I have to disagree. While it's a no brainer in theory that a park will be built on the cap, all those sources of funding you mentioned are all speculation. For all we know that cap will sit empty for years until someone from the private sector moves forward on it. TxDOT doesn't care about how or when a park could be designed on the cap, it's all just an idea they are presenting to sell the highway project. At the end of the day their focus is another highway project, that's it. 

the easiest way to put it is that the cap parks are vaporware at the moment.

[Luminare]

23 hours ago, samagon said:

the easiest way to put it is that the cap parks are vaporware at the moment.

I get what you are saying, but one can only say something was vaporware in hindsight. If these promises were made now and never fulfilled and its ten years down the line, then I would agree with you that its vaporware. If we were to take the images above and compare them to any proposed project with renders of a hypothetical future then by your definition they would all be vaporware because they are promises of the future or announcements of the future which have yet to happen.

In this industry anything is technically possible given enough time and money. Time is still up in the air, and money has yet to be fully committed to anything because construction has yet to start. If your opinion, and I'm not saying it is, but if your opinion is that this won't happen then thinking this is "vaporware" is a bias don't you think? I'm not saying the cap will or will not happen. We just don't have enough info to really know what's going on in the first place. Calling this thing DOA is a bit premature from where I'm standing. Its certainly an optimistic future, but its not impossible.

[samagon]

the definition from most sources on the internet of vaporware is...

Quote

software or hardware that has been advertised but is not yet available to buy, either because it is only a concept or because it is still being written or designed.

you may personally have a different connotative definition of the word, but the denotative (and I would challenge, the most common connotative definition) definition is exactly what this is.

[Luminare]

9 minutes ago, samagon said:

the definition from most sources on the internet of vaporware is...

you may personally have a different connotative definition of the word, but the denotative (and I would challenge, the most common connotative definition) definition is exactly what this is.

Fair. To me that definition is too broad even if its the accepted definition. Its basically the most cynical way to portray a proposed idea or concept without giving it a chance. Lets be real, that definition is not ever used to look at anything favorably, but is instead applied when one is skeptical or even cynical of what is being proposed (which is how that definition came to be in the first place). By the way, not saying one shouldn't be cynical/skeptical.

Now are there people that are immediately buying this cap park idea and think its going to happen because they like the pretty pictures and it goes with their bias how this project is going to be all good with no downside...yeah probably, but the same can be said for the other side who cynically and immediately think this is all downside with little to no upside. Right now its an idea. Its a proposal. If you want to say vaporware, then okay. I don't agree obviously. I think it would be better to use more neutral terms. That's just me though.

[samagon]

it's true that a lot of vaporware doesn't happen, but a lot of it does happen.

calling it vaporware doesn't mean I don't think it won't happen, it means exactly what it means, that the project is by no means a guarantee. and even if it does happen, it might be a much longer timescale than anyone ever imagined. if that makes me a skeptic and cynic, so be it, I guess.

anyway, I hope that if the various levels of government can agree on the outcome of the NHHIP that all of the potential cap parks are approved, paid for and completed as soon as possible once TXDoT gives the greenlight for them to start construction of said cap parks.

Edited February 10, 2022 by samagon

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

it's true that a lot of vaporware doesn't happen, but a lot of it does happen.

calling it vaporware doesn't mean I don't think it won't happen, it means exactly what it means, that the project is by no means a guarantee. and even if it does happen, it might be a much longer timescale than anyone ever imagined. if that makes me a skeptic and cynic, so be it, I guess.

anyway, I hope that if the various levels of government can agree on the outcome of the NHHIP that all of the potential cap parks are approved, paid for and completed as soon as possible once TXDoT gives the greenlight for them to start construction of said cap parks.

If there is anything I'm skeptical about its the timeline. This will more likely than not take longer than forecasted. If the Big Dig in Boston is any indication. More important than anything I just want them to get start, so people whos lives will be effected can get a jump start on making plans with how to adjust themselves to the situation. Indecisiveness from any government or institution, I think we can both agree, will only hurt regular people. They really do need to get a move on with this. These institutions only have a finite amount of political will and time to get this going.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Luminare

[Big E]

On 2/10/2022 at 2:25 PM, Luminare said:

These institutions only have a finite amount of political will and time to get this going.

Which is precisely why those who are acting against the project are trying to do it now. They want to syphon what political will there is behind this project in order to stop it. It will only hurt Houston in the long run, as the money earmarked will get spent elsewhere.

[Amlaham]

https://communityimpact.com/houston/bay-area/transportation/2022/02/17/txdot-commissioner-optimistic-about-i-45-agreements/

Still on pause :( 

[aachor]

On 2/10/2022 at 2:25 PM, Luminare said:

This will more likely than not take longer than forecasted. If the Big Dig in Boston is any indication. 

Boston's Big Dig is what this project reminds me of. It looks expensive. It looks like a decade-long project. And it looks incredibly disruptive.

Which is why I'm generally opposed to this project. Honestly, in a city that is susceptible to flooding, I don't know that it's worth the effort, time, or expense to bury the freeway. And, as planned, the freeway would certainly flood without continuous pumping.

I'd be a lot more favorable if they kept things elevated. Not just to add resiliency, but also to reduce the cost and time of construction.

Edited February 18, 2022 by aachor

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, aachor said:

Boston's Big Dig is what this project reminds me of. It looks expensive. It looks like a decade-long project. And it looks incredibly disruptive.

Which is why I'm generally opposed to this project. Honestly, in a city that is susceptible to flooding, I don't know that it's worth the effort, time, or expense to bury the freeway. And, as planned, the freeway would certainly flood without continuous pumping.

I'd be a lot more favorable if they kept things elevated. Not just to add resiliency, but also to reduce the cost and time of construction.

“Generally opposed” and “a lot more favorable” and “resiliency” mixed in with “long construction time” and then bring in “continuous pumping” to boot! Pick the tiles without buzzwords to prove you’re not a robot.

Meanwhile, half the people on the forum will love, without realizing that post suggests doubling the current size of the elevated freeway.

Seems pretty (suspiciously) specific.

[aachor]

6 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Meanwhile, half the people on the forum will love, without realizing that post suggests doubling the current size of the elevated freeway.

Either you double the size of the elevated portion, or you double it and then place it in a moat. I don't get your point.

Also, I'm reminded of 288 between McGregor and 610 during T.S. Beta. It went totally underwater while most of the other freeways were just fine. I still got to work okay, but it caused a headache for many people. It didn't flood because the bayou overflowed. The bayou was fine- I drove over it. 288 flooded because it's a ditch.

I don't see anything wrong with elevated freeways except that they don't have park caps which no one is going to pay for.

Edited February 18, 2022 by aachor

[ADCS]

3 hours ago, aachor said:

Either you double the size of the elevated portion, or you double it and then place it in a moat. I don't get your point.

Also, I'm reminded of 288 between McGregor and 610 during T.S. Beta. It went totally underwater while most of the other freeways were just fine. I still got to work okay, but it caused a headache for many people. It didn't flood because the bayou overflowed. The bayou was fine- I drove over it. 288 flooded because it's a ditch.

I don't see anything wrong with elevated freeways except that they don't have park caps which no one is going to pay for.

All that water wasn't in your neighborhood. Freeways that flood during major events are a good thing - that's retention capacity that would instead be impervious cover with an at-grade or elevated structure.

[mattyt36]

5 hours ago, aachor said:

I don't see anything wrong with elevated freeways except that they don't have park caps which no one is going to pay for.

Here we go again!