I-45 Rebuild (North Houston Highway Improvement Project)

[004n063]

6 minutes ago, iah77 said:

I think you need to direct you anger at our ridiculous minimum setbacks and parking requirements. Anything you like about Amsterdam is probably not legal here under our present building codes. Keep in mind even applying for small variances can be very expensive. 

Without a doubt, setbacks and especially parking minimums are the policy problem here. 

But solving the policy problem now won't fix the reality problem (at least, not for a long time). What we need is rapid densification along transit/walkability corridors.

[Luminare]

11 minutes ago, iah77 said:

I think you need to direct you anger at our ridiculous minimum setbacks and parking requirements. Anything you like about Amsterdam is probably not legal here under our present building codes. Keep in mind even applying for small variances can be very expensive. 

I don't know this person, but I always recommend spending a few years in one of these places preached about so often before they are used as an example. I actually gained a greater appreciation of this country, Texas, and Houston after a couple years away. Now Houston can certainly learn something from the Dutch regarding flood prevention, but other than that the two cultures can't be anymore different. A culture can't be imposed top down. It can only grow from bottom up. If you want the culture to change which then eventually changes everything from habits, to politics then start local. In a generation you might see the change you desire, but practice what you preach right? I don't go running around talking about how much I want things to change. Instead I try my best to do things the way I would like them to be. If people follow me then they will if they don't then they don't. There are days when work gets really grindy that I prefer to drive to work, but most days I've started biking again. Do I walk into the office and talk about how superior I think I am because I choose for myself a different way to get to work?...No. I go to my seat and do my work. If @004n063 wants change then making odd comparisons to cultures that aren't like Houston isn't going to do anything. What might do something is you put what you want into practice. Then get a friend involved, and then they get their friend involved. Otherwise I should just post that Simpsons meme "Old man yells at clouds." How does that change anything?

[samagon]

4 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

Pretending that population size is not a factor is just silly.  FWIW, the Amsterdam metro area of about 2.5 Million people has a density of about 2,500/square mile.  Houston metro's 7.1 Million population has a density of almost 3,000/square mile.

that's a fair and accurate stat. to have value though you need to fly a bit lower than just some high altitude numbers regarding the MSA, and consider things such as land use.

for instance, Amsterdam's metro area has huge tracts of farm land, national parks, and other things with small dense towns as part of the metro area. according to this website: https://hollandcircularhotspot.nl/cities/metropole-region-amsterdam/ most of the IJsselmeer is included in the Amsterdam Metro area? which that's a lake that takes up about 1/5 of the area in and of itself. 

so it's not really comparable.

Houston MSA is sprawling, but it is indeed sprawling, most single family homes for instance are on lots that are minimum of 5000sf. 

Amsterdam MSA may be 'sprawling' as well, but if you drill in you see it's pockets of very dense livable areas surrounded by farms, lakes, parks, etc. most homes with a yard (and yard usually means 400sf on average) share a common wall with another home, and actual detached homes with 5000sf of land, that's rich folk territory.

Edited September 27, 2022 by samagon

[samagon]

23 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

Without a doubt, setbacks and especially parking minimums are the policy problem here. 

But solving the policy problem now won't fix the reality problem (at least, not for a long time). What we need is rapid densification along transit/walkability corridors.

considering that until 1999 you couldn't build a single family residence on a lot smaller than 5000sf, and even then, free standing homes on lots smaller than 5000sf was confined to the inner loop (has since been expanded outside the loop). Houston may not be zoned, but there are some silly rules we have that have absolutely forced us into a single mode of transit.

[Luminare]

30 minutes ago, samagon said:

considering that until 1999 you couldn't build a single family residence on a lot smaller than 5000sf, and even then, free standing homes on lots smaller than 5000sf was confined to the inner loop (has since been expanded outside the loop). Houston may not be zoned, but there are some silly rules we have that have absolutely forced us into a single mode of transit.

Or the fact that there was a moratorium on multi-family development within the loop which was government imposed, or that highways were built and designed and imposed by the government, or that cities until recently as far back as even a few decades ago were a dump and were a result of terrible management by government. People will naturally chose the avenue of least resistance, and it will reflect the times in which they live, and what is readily available to them. I'm tired of people endlessly abstracting these things without understanding context, because this will just result in the same kind of bad development imposed in the past. The same institutions that created these messes are the same institutions that are trying to fix them today, with the same people who think they will be the solution. I've been studying this stuff going on 10 years, some ideas are genuinely good and can be applied here, but most of the people professing these ideas have zero clue what they are doing just like those in decades past who though the highway would solve everything. Its the same people just possessed by a new idea. Someone I typically follow once said a great quote and I use it every chance I get, and its to this effect, "The idealism of every age is a cover story for its greatest thefts." Something to think about.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Luminare

[004n063]

2 hours ago, Luminare said:

I don't know this person, but I always recommend spending a few years in one of these places preached about so often before they are used as an example. I actually gained a greater appreciation of this country, Texas, and Houston after a couple years away. Now Houston can certainly learn something from the Dutch regarding flood prevention, but other than that the two cultures can't be anymore different. A culture can't be imposed top down. It can only grow from bottom up. If you want the culture to change which then eventually changes everything from habits, to politics then start local. In a generation you might see the change you desire, but practice what you preach right? I don't go running around talking about how much I want things to change. Instead I try my best to do things the way I would like them to be. If people follow me then they will if they don't then they don't. There are days when work gets really grindy that I prefer to drive to work, but most days I've started biking again. Do I walk into the office and talk about how superior I think I am because I choose for myself a different way to get to work?...No. I go to my seat and do my work. If @004n063 wants change then making odd comparisons to cultures that aren't like Houston isn't going to do anything. What might do something is you put what you want into practice. Then get a friend involved, and then they get their friend involved. Otherwise I should just post that Simpsons meme "Old man yells at clouds." How does that change anything?

This started with my joking incredulity at the idea that a booming car-centric city could possibly have anything but world-class driving conditions, when in reality the former all but assures the impossibility of the latter.

But I think your argument about culture is misguided. I've spent a lot of time with a lot of Dutch people, and I've spent a lot of time with a lot of Houstonians, and I'll sat this: the proportions of Houstonians and Dutch folks who are really into biking is about the same (probably somewhere around 0.5%). The same is true for walking and transit (are your NYC friends/family really into the walking or subway "scene"? Of course not). 

You are right to note that habits don't change overnight, even on an individual level, regardless of infrastructure. But after spending time in a lot of different parts of the world, I am now absolutely convinced that urban layout and infrastructure are far and away the most significant factors in transportation behavior.

Is it true that Amsterdam and Houston are wildly different cities? Yes, of course. But for the first two decades of post-WWII rebuilding and expansion, Amsterdam was very much following the Sprawlbelt playbook: big highways, wide US-style streets, slum-clearance for highway expansion, the works. Then, in the early 1970s, a small group of people protested, brought attention to the high rates of children being killed by cars, and pushed the government to design its way out of that mess. 50 years later, the Netherlands is the "cycling" capital of the world, despite the fact that the averate Dutchie doesn't give a hoot about bikes. It's just the most convenient way for them to get around the city.

Dutchies aren't "bike people," New Yorkers aren't "train people" or cultural perambulists, Houstonians aren't "car people". People just do whatever is practical. If you build a city for walking, people will walk. If you build it for bikes, people will bike. If you build it for transit, people will take transit. And if you build it for cars, people will drive.

But only one of those approaches ruins it for all the others.

[mattyt36]

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

You are right to note that habits don't change overnight, even on an individual level, regardless of infrastructure. But after spending time in a lot of different parts of the world, I am now absolutely convinced that urban layout and infrastructure are far and away the most significant factors in transportation behavior.

Honest question--do you feel the above to be in any way insightful?  As written, you seem to be presenting it as such, but to me it's about as insightful as "Plants that get more water generally grow better than those that don't" (i.e., it's a truism).  From such a truism flows, "Well you need to water the plants that don't get watered," which is about the same as saying, "If the City has no walking, well you need to redesign it for walking."  I mean, objectively not false by any standard, but kind of misses the point that there (1) may not be enough water to go around; or (2) GOOD LUCK.  In neither case can you snap your fingers and make more water, nor relocate millions of people. (I guess you can rain dance for more water, maybe you can rain dance for changing the urban composition of the City with rain . . . Houston would be a great candidate for that . . . and, yes, that's a multi-level metaphor . . . )

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I've spent a lot of time with a lot of Dutch people, and I've spent a lot of time with a lot of Houstonians

This is hilarious in its own, only Houston way. #OnlyInHouston  (I mean, maybe next year on Mo on Netflix he can say "Some of my best friends are Dutch" in response to a joke about Goldmember's hatred of the Dutch from Austin Powers . . . which starred . . . our own Beyonce).  So multi-level . . . 

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Is it true that Amsterdam and Houston are wildly different cities? Yes, of course.

I'm not necessarily sure they are "wildly different" unless your yardstick is physical composition.  If your only yardstick is physical composition, well, I'd say you are missing the largest part of the pie. (Although The Netherlands and Houston ironically have a very similar physical composition at the end of the day . . . so I dunno.  BTW, next time please inform me (and thusly so), Twitter, with proper notice that Orange Queen is in town because I'd like to at least consider about thinking throwing some tulips from the Aldine Mail Route bridge on her royal procession from IAH.)

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

But for the first two decades of post-WWII rebuilding and expansion, Amsterdam was very much following the Sprawlbelt playbook: big highways, wide US-style streets, slum-clearance for highway expansion, the works. Then, in the early 1970s, a small group of people protested, brought attention to the high rates of children being killed by cars, and pushed the government to design its way out of that mess. 50 years later, the Netherlands is the "cycling" capital of the world

I'm admittedly a pretty simple guy, but that sounds even too simplistic for me.  Was this a book authored by Janna Jakobs?  Cuz it sounds pretty familiar.

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

Dutchies aren't "bike people," New Yorkers aren't "train people" or cultural perambulists, Houstonians aren't "car people". People just do whatever is practical.

Agree 100%.  I believe the millennials call this a "self-own."

5 hours ago, 004n063 said:

If you build a city for walking, people will walk. If you build it for bikes, people will bike. If you build it for transit, people will take transit. And if you build it for cars, people will drive.

Spoiler alert: The city is already built.

Spoiler alert #2: "People just do whatever is practical."

So . . . what's your plan?  You've got a metro area of 7 million people already living in accommodations they call "home" and in the only neighborhood they know (you may not recognize them as "neighborhoods," but they are by definition) . . . many of these (probably approaching a full million) don't have anything near employment stability, nevermind housing stability.  How're you going to convince them (or are you going to opt to simply tell them?) that the life they can afford and that they want is just not an option . . . because of . . . you heard Amsterdam was nice and a bunch of people protested and that somehow fixed everything?  (Maybe a flier on the multitude of benefits from spontaneous perambulation will win these hapless rubes over?}

Hey, trust me, I'd be the first person to vote for you if I were convinced you could deliver even 10% of it.  (Hell, I'm getting old, I'd even go for 5% . . .)

I'm all ears.

Edited September 28, 2022 by mattyt36

[004n063]

16 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Honest question--do you feel the above to be in any way insightful?  As written, you seem to be presenting it as such, but to me it's about as insightful as "Plants that get more water generally grow better than those that don't" (i.e., it's a truism).  From such a truism flows, "Well you need to water the plants that don't get watered," which is about the same as saying, "If the City has no walking, well you need to redesign it for walking."  I mean, objectively not false by any standard, but kind of misses the point that there (1) may not be enough water to go around; or (2) GOOD LUCK.  In neither case can you snap your fingers and make more water, nor relocate millions of people. (I guess you can rain dance for more water, maybe you can rain dance for changing the urban composition of the City with rain . . . Houston would be a great candidate for that . . . and, yes, that's a multi-level metaphor . . . )

This is hilarious in its own, only Houston way. #OnlyInHouston  (I mean, maybe next year on Mo on Netflix he can say "Some of my best friends are Dutch" in response to a joke about Goldmember's hatred of the Dutch from Austin Powers . . . which starred . . . our own Beyonce).  So multi-level . . . 

I'm not necessarily sure they are "wildly different" unless your yardstick is physical composition.  If your only yardstick is physical composition, well, I'd say you are missing the largest part of the pie. (Although The Netherlands and Houston ironically have a very similar physical composition at the end of the day . . . so I dunno.  BTW, next time please inform me (and thusly so), Twitter, with proper notice that Orange Queen is in town because I'd like to at least consider about thinking throwing some tulips from the Aldine Mail Route bridge on her royal procession from IAH.)

I'm admittedly a pretty simple guy, but that sounds even too simplistic for me.  Was this a book authored by Janna Jakobs?  Cuz it sounds pretty familiar.

Agree 100%.  I believe the millennials call this a "self-own."

Spoiler alert: The city is already built.

Spoiler alert #2: "People just do whatever is practical."

So . . . what's your plan?  You've got a metro area of 7 million people already living in accommodations they call "home" and in the only neighborhood they know (you may not recognize them as "neighborhoods," but they are by definition) . . . many of these (probably approaching a full million) don't have anything near employment stability, nevermind housing stability.  How're you going to convince them (or are you going to opt to simply tell them?) that the life they can afford and that they want is just not an option . . . because of . . . you heard Amsterdam was nice and a bunch of people protested and that somehow fixed everything?  (Maybe a flier on the multitude of benefits from spontaneous perambulation will win these hapless rubes over?}

Hey, trust me, I'd be the first person to vote for you if I were convinced you could deliver even 10% of it.  (Hell, I'm getting old, I'd even go for 5% . . .)

I'm all ears.

I don't know what it was you thought you were responding to there. As to "my" plan, I'll repeat myself:

1) Eliminate mandatory parking minimums and setback requirements. Let the market decide that.

2) Invest in transit, dense housing & multiuse developments, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure beyond current observable demand. A bridge's value isn't determined by the number of swimmers; neither should a quality rail network be judged by the number of bus riders, nor a protected bike lane by the number of people currently riding in mixed traffic.

This may not be financially feasivle beyond a certain radius, or outside of selected corridors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't build up that radius and/or those corridors.

3) Don't increase the highway footprint, and decrease it wherever and whenever possible, especially within a couple of miles of downtown.

4) Use modal filters to keep auto through-traffic on side streets to a minimum, but don't do the Uptown thing of building endless impermeable superblocks that force everyone onto the stroads. Where possible, pedestrian/bicycle alleyways there.

5) Close redundant parking lot entrances/exits along bike lanes. 

6) Plant a thousand dollarston of trees.

[Luminare]

17 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

I don't know what it was you thought you were responding to there. As to "my" plan, I'll repeat myself:

1) Eliminate mandatory parking minimums and setback requirements. Let the market decide that.

2) Invest in transit, dense housing & multiuse developments, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure beyond current observable demand. A bridge's value isn't determined by the number of swimmers; neither should a quality rail network be judged by the number of bus riders, nor a protected bike lane by the number of people currently riding in mixed traffic.

This may not be financially feasivle beyond a certain radius, or outside of selected corridors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't build up that radius and/or those corridors.

3) Don't increase the highway footprint, and decrease it wherever and whenever possible, especially within a couple of miles of downtown.

4) Use modal filters to keep auto through-traffic on side streets to a minimum, but don't do the Uptown thing of building endless impermeable superblocks that force everyone onto the stroads. Where possible, pedestrian/bicycle alleyways there.

5) Close redundant parking lot entrances/exits along bike lanes. 

6) Plant a thousand dollarston of trees.

By the way if anyone wants to actually learn something today you can buy the textbook which a lot of Architects have used to study for the ARE Exams (Including myself)

https://www.amazon.com/PPI-Exam-Review-Divisions-Comprehensive/dp/1591266807/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1KFZ28KGF87PC&keywords=ballast+are+review+manual&qid=1664402865&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIwLjAwIiwicXNhIjoiMC4wMCIsInFzcCI6IjAuMDAifQ%3D%3D&sprefix=ballast+are%2Caps%2C114&sr=8-4

Hope you are interested, and I hope you learn something from it.

My answers to numbers above:

1) About the only thing we probably agree on, but for probably different reasons.

2) This isn't how projects are ever proposed, or discussed. This isn't academia where you can do whatever you want based on some abstract hypothetical. Every architect with experience in the field, ARE literature, and even material on sustainability would say that you are wrong. People build for what they need when they need it. Period.

3) I don't like highway expansion as much as the next person, but putting a moratorium on anything just like previous moratorium on multi-family inside the loop is going to cause exactly the opposite you want. You might convince your loyal followers to stay, but everyone else will leave. Also you eliminate options and in business and development eliminating options ends the discussion because it goes from a negotiation to compulsion. Which do you think has more success?

4) Again depends on context and situation. This isn't something you just look on google maps and think you know where everything goes. Different places have different traffic patterns and different needs.

5) I'm fine with closing up parking lot entrances close or immediately next to an intersection. That is something I will always present as a compromise. Most textbooks on the subject recommend not putting any entrance within 150' of an intersection. Who's going to close them all down though? You? We don't have zoning in Houston. The city can't do squat about this. This can only happen per client at a time. Do you know how many parking lot entrances their are in the city?

6) I don't understand. Houston already has a lot of trees. Certainly more than parking lots, and if you were to merely take the time to look around and appreciate what is there already then you would see that.

Anyway I'm done with this discussion for now. Lots of work to do. I'll look back in on this thread when the full demo of those apartments is complete.

 

[mattyt36]

2 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I don't know what it was you thought you were responding to there. As to "my" plan, I'll repeat myself:

SIR, with all due respect, let me "repeat yourself":

On 9/27/2022 at 4:42 PM, 004n063 said:

If we want to solve Houston's traffic problems, we need to invest heavily in both transit and transit-oriented development, or the city's economy needs to collapse. 

That is about as absolutist (not to mention ridiculously self-defeatist . . . I mean, have you ever been to Lagos?!  Not sure I'd vote for throwing myself on the pyre for being North America's sad orphan of not having zoning when the ultimate benefit would materialize for cities like Lagos, I mean, that is missing the point entirely again).  As it comes, nevermind the fact that it is more than likely the majority of people living in Houston may agree with you on Houston "having a traffic problem," trust me, the problem you're talking about is not the same problem they're talking about.

2 hours ago, 004n063 said:

1) Eliminate mandatory parking minimums and setback requirements. Let the market decide that.

2) Invest in transit, dense housing & multiuse developments, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure beyond current observable demand. A bridge's value isn't determined by the number of swimmers; neither should a quality rail network be judged by the number of bus riders, nor a protected bike lane by the number of people currently riding in mixed traffic.

This may not be financially feasivle beyond a certain radius, or outside of selected corridors. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't build up that radius and/or those corridors.

3) Don't increase the highway footprint, and decrease it wherever and whenever possible, especially within a couple of miles of downtown.

4) Use modal filters to keep auto through-traffic on side streets to a minimum, but don't do the Uptown thing of building endless impermeable superblocks that force everyone onto the stroads. Where possible, pedestrian/bicycle alleyways there.

5) Close redundant parking lot entrances/exits along bike lanes. 

6) Plant a thousand dollarston of trees.

Your list is on the surface anodyne, even (2) at first glance seems reasonable, but alas, we're back to plants-that-don't-get-water-generally-don't-grow/truism logic.  Ah, yes, we need to "invest in transit, dense housing, and multiuse developments."  I asked for your "plan" before, but now I will be more direct and ask you to expound . . . 

Tell me exactly what the above means to you and exactly how you think it can be accomplished, (given, er, that sad mistress most of us know as the Goddess of Reality.)  Then tell me what the end state will be--you've already given one vision of the end state, viz "If they don't do as I say, the economy needs to collapse."  (I'm very big on false equivalencies between the left and the right, but in this particular case I'll have to agree, the right has a point.)

And, while you're at it, send me the long list of cities in the US that have become European (you know, more like Amsterdam with a bakery on every corner so you don't even have to bike to it) with investments in transit.  Surely Dallas must be at the top.  Surely if not Dallas, well, then Buffalo, I mean per capita, they must have invested way more in transit.  The last time I was there, it didn't seem as if they were reaping the benefits more than 40 years after the fact, but maybe one day! 🤞

(I don't want to be a spoiler, but could your answer possibly be . . . that Dallas just didn't . . . do it . . . right?  Sounds familiar.  I'm so old I remember hearing Atlanta didn't do it right before I remember hearing LA didn't do it right. If only we could get it right . . . so, please, sir, expand on number 2.  And while you're at it, expand on (4) . . . what do you do when the "impermeable superblocks" already exist?  Do you rebuild?  Or do you just say "to hell with those suckers"?  If either (1) or (2), please explain to me how that would work politically . . . remember, I want you in office!  I'm much more hopeful you have a third option cuz I've thought about it a lot and I have come up empty, but, admittedly, as stated above, I'm a simpleton.)

P.S. @Luminare's response is much better than mine (great application of a meme!), as always, although I must take issue with his taking issue with your recommendation #6.  We absolutely should be planting as many trees as possible.  (Houston having plenty of trees?!  I know it feels that way if you live on the east side, but let's spread the wealth westward!  Have you ever been to Atlanta . . . they may have not done "investing heavily in transit right," but they can say without irony that they have plenty of trees.)

Edited September 29, 2022 by mattyt36

[004n063]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

SIR, with all due respect, let me "repeat yourself":

That is about as absolutist (not to mention ridiculously self-defeatist . . . I mean, have you ever been to Lagos?!  Not sure I'd vote for throwing myself on the pyre for being North America's sad orphan of not having zoning when the ultimate benefit would materialize for cities like Lagos, I mean, that is missing the point entirely again).  As it comes, nevermind the fact that it is more than likely the majority of people living in Houston may agree with you on Houston "having a traffic problem," trust me, the problem you're talking about is not the same problem they're talking about.

Your list is on the surface anodyne, even (2) at first glance seems reasonable, but alas, we're back to plants-that-don't-get-water-generally-don't-grow/truism logic.  Ah, yes, we need to "invest in transit, dense housing, and multiuse developments."  I asked for your "plan" before, but now I will be more direct and ask you to expound . . . 

Tell me exactly what the above means to you and exactly how you think it can be accomplished, (given, er, that sad mistress most of us know as the Goddess of Reality.)  Then tell me what the end state will be--you've already given one vision of the end state, viz "If they don't do as I say, the economy needs to collapse."  (I'm very big on false equivalencies between the left and the right, but in this particular case I'll have to agree, the right has a point.)

And, while you're at it, send me the long list of cities in the US that have become European (you know, more like Amsterdam with a bakery on every corner so you don't even have to bike to it) with investments in transit.  Surely Dallas must be at the top.  Surely if not Dallas, well, then Buffalo, I mean per capita, they must have invested way more in transit.  The last time I was there, it didn't seem as if they were reaping the benefits more than 40 years after the fact, but maybe one day! 🤞

(I don't want to be a spoiler, but could your answer possibly be . . . that Dallas just didn't . . . do it . . . right?  Sounds familiar.  I'm so old I remember hearing Atlanta didn't do it right before I remember hearing LA didn't do it right. If only we could get it right . . . so, please, sir, expand on number 2.  And while you're at it, expand on (4) . . . what do you do when the "impermeable superblocks" already exist?  Do you rebuild?  Or do you just say "to hell with those suckers"?  If either (1) or (2), please explain to me how that would work politically . . . remember, I want you in office!  I'm much more hopeful you have a third option cuz I've thought about it a lot and I have come up empty, but, admittedly, as stated above, I'm a simpleton.)

P.S. @Luminare's response is much better than mine (great application of a meme!), as always, although I must take issue with his taking issue with your recommendation #6.  We absolutely should be planting as many trees as possible.  (Houston having plenty of trees?!  I know it feels that way if you live on the east side, but let's spread the wealth westward!  Have you ever been to Atlanta . . . they may have not done "investing heavily in transit right," but they can say without irony that they have plenty of trees.)

I think my comment about collapse may have been unclear. Traffic will continue to increase, almost no matter how much new land we devote to it. One more lane won't fix it, and five more lanes won't fix it for long. The only thing that fixes traffic problems long-term is fewer drivers.

You can get to fewer drivers either by creating more viable options besides driving, or by losing population. The latter would presumably spell economic collapse. 

How to invest in transit? Literally invest in it. Build it. Westheimer, Washington, Shepherd, Leeland/Telephone, Crawford/Almeda. Regional rail lines through downtown from Sugarland to The Woodlands, to downtown from Katy, and a beltway line. The city is the only entity that can do this. Bike network? Ditto, but more densely. If there is a place people need to go, build the infrastructure that allows them to get there safely. Same for pedestrian infrastructure, but I would add the caveat that the current policy of "up to 1500 ft, by request" for sidewalks is ridiculous and needs to be replaced with an "obviously every street will have an adequate sidewalk" policy.

Investing in "density" is harder. I really do believe that the development of businesses and non-public housing should be market-driven, and overprescription is a bad move. But if you do the rest of it (transit & ped/bike infrastructure), the market will come. We're already seeing this with all three current rail lines, and that's without a true network. 

For the impermeable superblocks, it's case-by-case. In many of those cases, it's literally just a locked gate that forces a bicyclist to turn around. Or there is a fence between two apartment block driveways. It's true that the mistakes have already been made, but that doesn't mean there are no solutions. It could just mean building protected bike lanes on Richmond and San Felipe. But we need something there.

The political question is a real one, to be sure. But - and I base this on literally nothing - I do believe the voting appetite is there for a politics of building, which is what I'm advocating for. 

[Luminare]

13 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

SIR, with all due respect, let me "repeat yourself":

That is about as absolutist (not to mention ridiculously self-defeatist . . . I mean, have you ever been to Lagos?!  Not sure I'd vote for throwing myself on the pyre for being North America's sad orphan of not having zoning when the ultimate benefit would materialize for cities like Lagos, I mean, that is missing the point entirely again).  As it comes, nevermind the fact that it is more than likely the majority of people living in Houston may agree with you on Houston "having a traffic problem," trust me, the problem you're talking about is not the same problem they're talking about.

Your list is on the surface anodyne, even (2) at first glance seems reasonable, but alas, we're back to plants-that-don't-get-water-generally-don't-grow/truism logic.  Ah, yes, we need to "invest in transit, dense housing, and multiuse developments."  I asked for your "plan" before, but now I will be more direct and ask you to expound . . . 

Tell me exactly what the above means to you and exactly how you think it can be accomplished, (given, er, that sad mistress most of us know as the Goddess of Reality.)  Then tell me what the end state will be--you've already given one vision of the end state, viz "If they don't do as I say, the economy needs to collapse."  (I'm very big on false equivalencies between the left and the right, but in this particular case I'll have to agree, the right has a point.)

And, while you're at it, send me the long list of cities in the US that have become European (you know, more like Amsterdam with a bakery on every corner so you don't even have to bike to it) with investments in transit.  Surely Dallas must be at the top.  Surely if not Dallas, well, then Buffalo, I mean per capita, they must have invested way more in transit.  The last time I was there, it didn't seem as if they were reaping the benefits more than 40 years after the fact, but maybe one day! 🤞

(I don't want to be a spoiler, but could your answer possibly be . . . that Dallas just didn't . . . do it . . . right?  Sounds familiar.  I'm so old I remember hearing Atlanta didn't do it right before I remember hearing LA didn't do it right. If only we could get it right . . . so, please, sir, expand on number 2.  And while you're at it, expand on (4) . . . what do you do when the "impermeable superblocks" already exist?  Do you rebuild?  Or do you just say "to hell with those suckers"?  If either (1) or (2), please explain to me how that would work politically . . . remember, I want you in office!  I'm much more hopeful you have a third option cuz I've thought about it a lot and I have come up empty, but, admittedly, as stated above, I'm a simpleton.)

P.S. @Luminare's response is much better than mine (great application of a meme!), as always, although I must take issue with his taking issue with your recommendation #6.  We absolutely should be planting as many trees as possible.  (Houston having plenty of trees?!  I know it feels that way if you live on the east side, but let's spread the wealth westward!  Have you ever been to Atlanta . . . they may have not done "investing heavily in transit right," but they can say without irony that they have plenty of trees.)

Thanks my friend. Help me bring in more meme's haha. I've been trying to invest in more meme's and bringing them to the forum for a couple years now. I need help! Simple ways of communicating are often the best, right?

[mattyt36]

17 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I think my comment about collapse may have been unclear. Traffic will continue to increase, almost no matter how much new land we devote to it. One more lane won't fix it, and five more lanes won't fix it for long. The only thing that fixes traffic problems long-term is fewer drivers.

You can get to fewer drivers either by creating more viable options besides driving, or by losing population. The latter would presumably spell economic collapse. 

How to invest in transit? Literally invest in it. Build it. Westheimer, Washington, Shepherd, Leeland/Telephone, Crawford/Almeda. Regional rail lines through downtown from Sugarland to The Woodlands, to downtown from Katy, and a beltway line. The city is the only entity that can do this. Bike network? Ditto, but more densely. If there is a place people need to go, build the infrastructure that allows them to get there safely. Same for pedestrian infrastructure, but I would add the caveat that the current policy of "up to 1500 ft, by request" for sidewalks is ridiculous and needs to be replaced with an "obviously every street will have an adequate sidewalk" policy.

Investing in "density" is harder. I really do believe that the development of businesses and non-public housing should be market-driven, and overprescription is a bad move. But if you do the rest of it (transit & ped/bike infrastructure), the market will come. We're already seeing this with all three current rail lines, and that's without a true network. 

For the impermeable superblocks, it's case-by-case. In many of those cases, it's literally just a locked gate that forces a bicyclist to turn around. Or there is a fence between two apartment block driveways. It's true that the mistakes have already been made, but that doesn't mean there are no solutions. It could just mean building protected bike lanes on Richmond and San Felipe. But we need something there.

The political question is a real one, to be sure. But - and I base this on literally nothing - I do believe the voting appetite is there for a politics of building, which is what I'm advocating for. 

It's very hard for me to disagree on any of this from a theoretical standpoint.

It's the execution, of course, that I'd say we're nowhere near "mobilized" for politically.  (And that's assuming that the majority wants the same outcome . . . which is . . . quite an assumption.)

It sure is nice to think about, though.

[august948]

18 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I think my comment about collapse may have been unclear. Traffic will continue to increase, almost no matter how much new land we devote to it. One more lane won't fix it, and five more lanes won't fix it for long. The only thing that fixes traffic problems long-term is fewer drivers.

You can get to fewer drivers either by creating more viable options besides driving, or by losing population. The latter would presumably spell economic collapse. 

 

There's a third option, the development of edge cities.  I think we are well into this trend already.  Bear in mind that the primary traffic issue occurs mornings and evenings during the working week.  Outside those times, the current highway infrastructure runs fairly smoothly. 

[august948]

21 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

P.S. @Luminare's response is much better than mine (great application of a meme!), as always, although I must take issue with his taking issue with your recommendation #6.  We absolutely should be planting as many trees as possible.  (Houston having plenty of trees?!  I know it feels that way if you live on the east side, but let's spread the wealth westward!  Have you ever been to Atlanta . . . they may have not done "investing heavily in transit right," but they can say without irony that they have plenty of trees.)

Here on the west side we've got plenty of trees, unless perhaps you are referring to the Katy Prairie.  We can always use more, though.  Completely agree with you on Atlanta.  Lived there for ten years and they've got the tree thing down.  Of course, the Atlanta area was heavily forested even before it was known as Terminus.  We started with wide open coastal plains so, all things considered, we haven't done too badly.

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, mattyt36 said:

It's very hard for me to disagree on any of this from a theoretical standpoint.

It's the execution, of course, that I'd say we're nowhere near "mobilized" for politically.  (And that's assuming that the majority wants the same outcome . . . which is . . . quite an assumption.)

It sure is nice to think about, though.

Exactly this. If this was a thread on the theoretical, I'm all game to have fun spit-balling ideas, even far reaching that could only be achieved with top-down control (play Cities Skylines maybe?), but its just that a thought experiment. Implementation and execution is another story, and in this thread we are talking about a project that requires actual execution. Not to mention anytime I see anyone talk about these types of ideas in the theoretical, one seems to always forget that at the end of the day the execution is going to be done by a human being. We are fallible, we can be easily corrupted, and easily lose control over ideas and systems we propose, construct, or run. Any time I see this play out I remember in my teens and 20's when I thought I knew everything, and my response in my head would be "well you failed because its you, but when I get power I'll know better." Talk about a recipe for disaster.

28 minutes ago, august948 said:

There's a third option, the development of edge cities.  I think we are well into this trend already.  Bear in mind that the primary traffic issue occurs mornings and evenings during the working week.  Outside those times, the current highway infrastructure runs fairly smoothly. 

From living in Germany then coming back to Houston, and then now living in Salt Lake City and revisiting Houston recently our highway system is actually really great. The problem isn't organization, its just the load its subjected too, as you pointed, in peak hours. Banning, replacing, or taking away isn't the answer. The answer is multiplicity. Each transport has its use, right? Can Houston become more flexible, and precise in its transportation structure? I think so, but we need to move away from these two radial "do or die" factions. I guess you can call one MassTransitstan, and Autostan? haha. There is a compromise in the middle, and we can get there without thinking the world is a zero-sum game.

[august948]

1 hour ago, Luminare said:

Exactly this. If this was a thread on the theoretical, I'm all game to have fun spit-balling ideas, even far reaching that could only be achieved with top-down control (play Cities Skylines maybe?), but its just that a thought experiment. Implementation and execution is another story, and in this thread we are talking about a project that requires actual execution. Not to mention anytime I see anyone talk about these types of ideas in the theoretical, one seems to always forget that at the end of the day the execution is going to be done by a human being. We are fallible, we can be easily corrupted, and easily lose control over ideas and systems we propose, construct, or run. Any time I see this play out I remember in my teens and 20's when I thought I knew everything, and my response in my head would be "well you failed because its you, but when I get power I'll know better." Talk about a recipe for disaster.

From living in Germany then coming back to Houston, and then now living in Salt Lake City and revisiting Houston recently our highway system is actually really great. The problem isn't organization, its just the load its subjected too, as you pointed, in peak hours. Banning, replacing, or taking away isn't the answer. The answer is multiplicity. Each transport has its use, right? Can Houston become more flexible, and precise in its transportation structure? I think so, but we need to move away from these two radial "do or die" factions. I guess you can call one MassTransitstan, and Autostan? haha. There is a compromise in the middle, and we can get there without thinking the world is a zero-sum game.

You hit the nail on the head.  The compromise is in the middle.  Make each highway like the Katy and then run transit in the middle.  We can call it Saudi Amsterdam.

[004n063]

3 hours ago, Luminare said:

Exactly this. If this was a thread on the theoretical, I'm all game to have fun spit-balling ideas, even far reaching that could only be achieved with top-down control (play Cities Skylines maybe?), but its just that a thought experiment. Implementation and execution is another story, and in this thread we are talking about a project that requires actual execution. Not to mention anytime I see anyone talk about these types of ideas in the theoretical, one seems to always forget that at the end of the day the execution is going to be done by a human being. We are fallible, we can be easily corrupted, and easily lose control over ideas and systems we propose, construct, or run. Any time I see this play out I remember in my teens and 20's when I thought I knew everything, and my response in my head would be "well you failed because its you, but when I get power I'll know better." Talk about a recipe for disaster.

From living in Germany then coming back to Houston, and then now living in Salt Lake City and revisiting Houston recently our highway system is actually really great. The problem isn't organization, its just the load its subjected too, as you pointed, in peak hours. Banning, replacing, or taking away isn't the answer. The answer is multiplicity. Each transport has its use, right? Can Houston become more flexible, and precise in its transportation structure? I think so, but we need to move away from these two radial "do or die" factions. I guess you can call one MassTransitstan, and Autostan? haha. There is a compromise in the middle, and we can get there without thinking the world is a zero-sum game.

I agree with pretty much all of this. And as someone who primarily bikes, I'm certainly optimistic enough on a personal (i.e. selfish) level, because I can very easily combine bike and rail to get anywhere I actually want to go besides my job (which requires a long bus trip in the morning and an extremely circuitous bike route in the afternoon), and I'm comfortable enough to ride in mixed traffic on non-stroads. 

But I do think the conflict between car-centricity and walkability is more fundamental than the "middle ground" approach acknowledges. The reality is that parking lots, highways, and wide stroads take up a lot of space, and the effect of that is to make walking often an impractical mode of transport.

As to the theoretical/execution side, while I get where you are coming from, I think the NHHIP thread is kind of exactly the place for discourse about long-term mobility and connectivity challenges of the city. 

That said, I would love to talk implementation details too. In the case of NHHIP, I think the most consequential as-yet-unanswered question is what to do with the land and structure of the Pierce Elevated. What are your thoughts? "Sky-park"? Demolish + greenway? Demolish + develop? 

Personally, I think (a small part of) the section between the Sabine exit and White Oak Bayou could be pretty cool, but I am not sure the Pierce section itself is best reimagined as a park. What do you think?

[samagon]

On 9/28/2022 at 5:23 PM, Luminare said:

 

 

only problem here is that Matty isn't interested in any kind of open discussion, so making it look like 004n063 isn't interested in discussion through a funny meme is disingenuous. 

[mattyt36]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

only problem here is that Matty isn't interested in any kind of open discussion, so making it look like 004n063 isn't interested in discussion through a funny meme is disingenuous. 

Open discuss all you want.

The only problem appears to be when you point out that a lot of what is being talked about is unfeasible and, while presented as prescriptive (and an on-the-surface simple one at that . . . e.g., invest in transit!), in actuality, it turns out to be little more than a statement of personal preference.  When asked how to fix, the response is typically (not @004n063 in this regard), well City X has a train to the airport, City Y demolished its freeways, or have you ever been to Amsterdam?!

I have been interested in urban planning and transit for most of my adult life, and 10 years ago (maybe 15), I would've been making similar posts.  The problem seemed much less complex and one that just required rebuilding "the right way," or building "the right things."  I'm not sure I ever even got so far as to acknowledge the reality that my view may not be shared by a majority of others living under the same conditions.  No way, I'd say, they just "don't know what they want," or "they'll come to like it when it's done."  It's a very autocratic, anti-democratic view at the end of the day.  (I'm afraid it even registers a bit on the Fashy scale, as I'm sure @august948 would agree.)

I don't know how a discipline that has screwed up so greatly before (let's not kid ourselves that none of these highways weren't planned by practitioners of transportation planning, let's not kid ourselves that master-planned suburbs like The Woodlands weren't built by developers with an earnest desire to improve the environment) and can't seem to offer much today in the way of real solutions for car-oriented American cities other than anecdotes about Europe and the same cities before freeways hasn't reoriented itself because those approaches are futile.  Confining this message board only to the traditional (well, perhaps not the best word, perhaps "current orthodoxy" is more appropriate) views is not the definition of an "open discussion" (not that I didn't already know that @samagon had his own definition . . . perhaps best paraphrased as "my way or the highway" . . . or perhaps "my way is no highway" will be better (although that wouldn't be accurate, either, as he seems to be perfectly fine with highways other than ones that go by his house, so maybe "while my way actually is this highway, no highway for you") . . . I jest).  I think if you reread you will see I, by definition, was discussing by engaging and asking questions as to how @004n063 thought his recommendations could be feasibly accomplished.  (You may disagree with my style, of course, but that is a matter of aesthetics.)

How can the same people who lectured us about disrespecting people's "way of life" by demolishing established neighborhoods to build freeways in the 1950s and 1960s employ implicitly the same approach by telling millions of people that their "way of life" is morally bad or not sufficiently aesthetically pleasing to you?  It's not a winning argument, and nakedly so.  These people with the Stop IH-45 Now, they're caricatures of caricatures of what they think happened in the 1950s.  Wanting to stop the demolition of an apartment building purchased with gas taxes because Houston has a "housing crisis"?  And why?  Because they said so?  Absolutely inane, there is no other word.  There is no vision for the future other than to not build the NHHIP.  If NHHIP doesn't get built, the money they're getting from God knows whose deep pockets they're getting it from will dry up and the group will be gone. 

There are scores of stories of "do-gooders" trying to bring water and sanitation and other new methods to remote villages in Africa and elsewhere that fail the minute the Westerners leave.  Why?  Because there is little appreciation of their existing way of life.  It's not that they particularly "like" unsanitary conditions, it's just that they already have their own ways of doing things and the "modern" or "scientifically recommended" methods aren't intuitive to them or cause other unintended consequences that the scientists either dismissed or didn't even consider to begin with.  Suburbanites, likewise, will be the first to tell you they don't like traffic, but they'll also be the first to tell you they won't ride the bus, right after they tell you they come into the city proper "only when they have to."  I don't see how making their commutes or journeys worse, or telling them they have to move, or "punishing them" by giving incentives to others is going to work out well in the end.

Now, if we are somehow able to mobilize politically such that we reorient the transportation funding mechanisms in the State and the US, that'd be a different story, but otherwise your best opportunity for rebuilding "right" or building the "right" things is for an utter catastrophe to hit the region.  Yet, even that "opportunity" is not likely to be realized due to the need to quickly rebuild (IF there even is a need to rebuild, that is). 

Edited September 30, 2022 by mattyt36

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, samagon said:

only problem here is that Matty isn't interested in any kind of open discussion, so making it look like 004n063 isn't interested in discussion through a funny meme is disingenuous. 

It is what it is. If the conversation changes then I'm open to listening.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Luminare

[mattyt36]

1 minute ago, Luminare said:

claiming I said something I never said is also disingenuous too, don't you think?

Well, it's certainly not ingenuous!

[Luminare]

16 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:

Well, it's certainly not ingenuous!

Like I've done with my edit. I'll say in response to this. It is what it is. If someone wants to waste time implying intent then thats their business. I can't control that. We've had our differences in other threads. To me that doesn't matter. Each discussion is a new discussion. Same applies to who my meme was aimed at.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Luminare

[BEES?!]

I used to be in team “Tear down pierce” until I got to go to POST and spend time on the rooftop. It really gives a unique perspective besides simply being on the ground (or being inside an office building).
 

I’m now on “Team Skypark” because I think it would bring something totally unique to Houston, and I feel like it’s a very “Houston” thing to do. If there were some way to utilize the areas underneath Pierce as well (maybe somehow put in some retail spaces?) that would be really cool. Or even cut holes into the structure to allow natural light through (or both?!?) so it’s less creepy to walk under, that’d make it feel less like a barrier between Downtown and Midtown imho. (You could also expand the sidewalks, too! Win

[HoustonMidtown]

 

[004n063]

12 hours ago, mattyt36 said:

Open discuss all you want.

The only problem appears to be when you point out that a lot of what is being talked about is unfeasible and, while presented as prescriptive (and an on-the-surface simple one at that . . . e.g., invest in transit!), in actuality, it turns out to be little more than a statement of personal preference.  When asked how to fix, the response is typically (not @004n063 in this regard), well City X has a train to the airport, City Y demolished its freeways, or have you ever been to Amsterdam?!

I have been interested in urban planning and transit for most of my adult life, and 10 years ago (maybe 15), I would've been making similar posts.  The problem seemed much less complex and one that just required rebuilding "the right way," or building "the right things."  I'm not sure I ever even got so far as to acknowledge the reality that my view may not be shared by a majority of others living under the same conditions.  No way, I'd say, they just "don't know what they want," or "they'll come to like it when it's done."  It's a very autocratic, anti-democratic view at the end of the day.  (I'm afraid it even registers a bit on the Fashy scale, as I'm sure @august948 would agree.)

I don't know how a discipline that has screwed up so greatly before (let's not kid ourselves that none of these highways weren't planned by practitioners of transportation planning, let's not kid ourselves that master-planned suburbs like The Woodlands weren't built by developers with an earnest desire to improve the environment) and can't seem to offer much today in the way of real solutions for car-oriented American cities other than anecdotes about Europe and the same cities before freeways hasn't reoriented itself because those approaches are futile.  Confining this message board only to the traditional (well, perhaps not the best word, perhaps "current orthodoxy" is more appropriate) views is not the definition of an "open discussion" (not that I didn't already know that @samagon had his own definition . . . perhaps best paraphrased as "my way or the highway" . . . or perhaps "my way is no highway" will be better (although that wouldn't be accurate, either, as he seems to be perfectly fine with highways other than ones that go by his house, so maybe "while my way actually is this highway, no highway for you") . . . I jest).  I think if you reread you will see I, by definition, was discussing by engaging and asking questions as to how @004n063 thought his recommendations could be feasibly accomplished.  (You may disagree with my style, of course, but that is a matter of aesthetics.)

How can the same people who lectured us about disrespecting people's "way of life" by demolishing established neighborhoods to build freeways in the 1950s and 1960s employ implicitly the same approach by telling millions of people that their "way of life" is morally bad or not sufficiently aesthetically pleasing to you?  It's not a winning argument, and nakedly so.  These people with the Stop IH-45 Now, they're caricatures of caricatures of what they think happened in the 1950s.  Wanting to stop the demolition of an apartment building purchased with gas taxes because Houston has a "housing crisis"?  And why?  Because they said so?  Absolutely inane, there is no other word.  There is no vision for the future other than to not build the NHHIP.  If NHHIP doesn't get built, the money they're getting from God knows whose deep pockets they're getting it from will dry up and the group will be gone. 

There are scores of stories of "do-gooders" trying to bring water and sanitation and other new methods to remote villages in Africa and elsewhere that fail the minute the Westerners leave.  Why?  Because there is little appreciation of their existing way of life.  It's not that they particularly "like" unsanitary conditions, it's just that they already have their own ways of doing things and the "modern" or "scientifically recommended" methods aren't intuitive to them or cause other unintended consequences that the scientists either dismissed or didn't even consider to begin with.  Suburbanites, likewise, will be the first to tell you they don't like traffic, but they'll also be the first to tell you they won't ride the bus, right after they tell you they come into the city proper "only when they have to."  I don't see how making their commutes or journeys worse, or telling them they have to move, or "punishing them" by giving incentives to others is going to work out well in the end.

Now, if we are somehow able to mobilize politically such that we reorient the transportation funding mechanisms in the State and the US, that'd be a different story, but otherwise your best opportunity for rebuilding "right" or building the "right" things is for an utter catastrophe to hit the region.  Yet, even that "opportunity" is not likely to be realized due to the need to quickly rebuild (IF there even is a need to rebuild, that is). 

If it wasn't clear: I'm not a Stop-45 person at all. I'll take progress - especially in Downtown and the surrounding areas - with the necessary compromises 100 times out of 100.

[august948]

8 hours ago, BEES?! said:

I used to be in team “Tear down pierce” until I got to go to POST and spend time on the rooftop. It really gives a unique perspective besides simply being on the ground (or being inside an office building).
 

I’m now on “Team Skypark” because I think it would bring something totally unique to Houston, and I feel like it’s a very “Houston” thing to do. If there were some way to utilize the areas underneath Pierce as well (maybe somehow put in some retail spaces?) that would be really cool. Or even cut holes into the structure to allow natural light through (or both?!?) so it’s less creepy to walk under, that’d make it feel less like a barrier between Downtown and Midtown imho. (You could also expand the sidewalks, too! Win

I'm torn between the two.  While a skypark would be super cool, it still creates a perceived barrier at street level.  Maybe there's a good solution for that, I just don't know.  If not, then a ground level park would also be good as that (and the skypark as well) would serve as an extension of Buffalo Bayou Park through downtown.  It'd be a nice connector either way.
 

[Big E]

On 9/29/2022 at 8:06 PM, 004n063 said:

That said, I would love to talk implementation details too. In the case of NHHIP, I think the most consequential as-yet-unanswered question is what to do with the land and structure of the Pierce Elevated. What are your thoughts? "Sky-park"? Demolish + greenway? Demolish + develop? 

Well I've always been partial to the demolish + develop camp. I've always said that the land should be sold and the proceeds used to help develop the freeway caps. But that's just my personal idea.

 

19 hours ago, samagon said:

only problem here is that Matty isn't interested in any kind of open discussion, so making it look like 004n063 isn't interested in discussion through a funny meme is disingenuous. 

You are the last person who should be talking about people being disingenuous. 

[Luminare]

On 9/30/2022 at 10:29 PM, august948 said:

I'm torn between the two.  While a skypark would be super cool, it still creates a perceived barrier at street level.  Maybe there's a good solution for that, I just don't know.  If not, then a ground level park would also be good as that (and the skypark as well) would serve as an extension of Buffalo Bayou Park through downtown.  It'd be a nice connector either way.
 

I've been torn as well, but I think its wise to leave it and reinvent it. I like cities that tell stories of their past. The Pierce Elevated should stand as a monument to what was seen as trial blazing for a time, and an achievement, to the next generation who look upon it with disgust, but then reinvent it to what they perceive as the next best way, and I'm sure in 20-30 years we will be doing the same thing again, but with something else. When something is completely scrubbed then we lose that piece of our history, and unfortunately it might mean it gets repeated again. I really enjoyed Berlin in Germany for the same thing. Its really interesting just how many different interventions and interpretations of the Berlin Wall there are. Some areas only mark it with one line of bricks, other sections remain as it were, but have been converted to art pieces, and one section is exactly as it was before the wall fell to show the scale and it lends perspective of those from that time, and a reminder to those in the future of what not to do. I'm really curious about our interpretation of Pierce. At the end of the day its about execution. Will the city pick a firm that knows what its doing and make this definitively Houston. Remains to be seen.

[77002er]

Blah, blah, blah, blah ....