IronTiger

I think that Sevfiv (or someone else) has some sort of land use maps from that era--I imagine the information isn't too hard to find.

LA did its first subway in 1990. My point was that their mass transit doesn't seem to be a very efficient use of money compared to expanding its undersized highways. Definitely missed the point, you were saying there "isn't much on westpark south of 59" as a reason for not putting light rail. I knew that North Main services a lot of homes--and even specifically stated it was a rhetorical question! As I expected...you're extrapolating some vague data points at best. At worst, that statement is completely fabricated. The point was missed again. Reread it. That's the problem with modern politics, I'm afraid. If you think it's just Culberson, or even Republicans, you're a fool--which is why a lot of people just throw up their hands and declare ALL politicians are corrupt.

I agree, this thread has accomplished nothing. And Interstate 10 still has traffic, Slick still worships light rail, and life goes on.

Oh no! Someone donated to a politician! Well, they also invested a lot in mass transit instead of freeways (something you see as a positive thing). Heck, on Interstate 10, they have rail going down it (in LA). Their highways also lack frontage roads, something Texas has plenty of. Also, if their highways really haven't seen major upgrades in 30+ years, that's the reason why LA traffic is bad. Sure there is. Apartments, a Kroger--I mean, what's on Main north of downtown? (That's a rhetorical question--don't bother answering that) Read a book from a library from the 1960s extolling the wonders of freeways. And it is true to an extent: where do the commercial entities (usually high land value) cluster? Along freeways. And yeah, freeways did do a lot of damage to neighborhoods--cut off street connections, split it in two. It's no wonder why the freeway revolts happened. Whether the neighborhoods that fought back are heroes for defending their turf or villains for screwing over the rest of the city is up for debate, so I can see your thoughts on Afton Oaks and the railroad. And before you say "light rails are different than freeways because X", I agree with you--but the concepts are remarkably similar. Reeeeeeeeally. You got any quotes for that? A Houston Library Card (you should have one, it's free) will let you search through Houston Chronicle articles. You were screaming about Culberson earlier because he didn't want it to go through Afton Oaks.

Mass transit isn't always efficient (it depends on where it is, really), and given the way Houston has developed, it would be hard to restructure it from the ground up. Many European cities still maintain a layout similar to the Middle Ages, even after infrastructure was changed (such as after wars). Slick has called Culberson "the devil" point blank. I wish I was exaggerating the anti-Culberson crowd, but I'm not.

Well, I can kind of see that. I think it would be cool if Cummins even closed off entirely to vehicular traffic past Richmond to 59 (it dead ends at 59 anyway). And besides, if the line was already shifted out of Richmond and Afton Oaks years ago, then yes, it would be ridiculous to see Culberson and Afton Oaks still screaming about it, but...why are HAIFers still screaming about it now?

Deflective "he's corrupt" rhetoric. When was the last time CalTrans significantly widened a highway in LA? (I actually don't know, that's why I'm asking--if the answer is something like "not since the 1970s", that's the answer right there) Well, considering that the "not necessarily going where people will ride" is a common argument against light rail as a whole, it's not the best thing to state now. What is it missing if it goes south of 59, besides annoying street running? Greenway Plaza? That can be accomplished by a skywalk (with moving sidewalks!) or some other platform that would go over 59. If you say that "no one will use that", then that's a problem with light rail there. And the ROW would go past apartments and a Kroger! The "Increasing property values" also was used for freeways, but some areas along freeways are pretty grimy. Oh, so we're now down to playing the race card. Great work on debating!

What I'm more annoyed about is that because Afton Oaks residents don't want light rail running down Richmond (which is understandable) and because Culberson is working with the wishes of his district (an admirable trait in politicians), that makes him Satan because he's blocking a line that METRO made and is apparently unwilling to move.

Blocking a light rail line is nothing compared to this rabid anti-Culberson nonsense.

I copied and pasted the quote above because it's true. One thing that I think you're missing is that Houston is an interesting city because although traffic can be rough during certain parts of the day, the spread out job centers and wide freeways make it feasible to drive to work instead of spending hours on commuter rail and transferring to another system later. This isn't to say that mass transit is worthless, it's just that it isn't as urgent as one would hope. And frankly, looking at Richmond through Afton Oaks, there's not a lot of right of way, east of 610, there's not a lot of stoplights where one can finally manage to turn and access other streets, traffic tends to get backed up at 610 and Richmond, and it's a beautiful street lined with trees. Why not route the light rail down the existing railroad ROW further? Dallas took great advantage of their abandoned ROW, why can't Houston?

Now, it may be just my perception, but I have a feeling that Safeway/Randalls did not adjust to the local neighborhoods it inhabited nearly as well as Kroger or H-E-B.

For someone who was calling a politician a "devil" for blocking a light rail line, you sure have a way of downplaying things that aren't on your side.

Nice strawman to deflect the point there.

Just a friendly reminder: public transit isn't considered a human right, and even where people DO talk about that, they don't mean rail.

I think that Houston needs more rail-based transit, but I also think people here hate Culberson WAY more than they should. In other cities, there are anti-freeway politicians (yeah, I know freeways and rails are really different, but roll with me here). A lot of people may think that they and their neighborhoods are holding the city back and that it would be better off without them. However, they aren't necessarily evil for choosing this. This unhinged "Culberson is Satan" rhetoric going on is total nonsense and almost makes me want to support Culberson more, because who wants to be associated with nutcases?

The Uptown Line isn't the "most critical", because even if you're getting it off METRO predicted numbers, keep in mind that even those are estimates to get funding. Houston isn't "ardently against public transportation". It's a good thing Culberson's there, because who else would you blame for not getting rail lines built?

Just stop. METRO is still adding lines, don't play to some "good vs. evil" rhetoric.

Never mind, it's between the two.

I have no idea why he's like that in the picture, but here's a slightly clearly picture of a different point in the shoot. I'm guessing it was before he got frustrated at the photographer (notice that he's just putting on the roof).

Well, keep in mind that people at bars aren't always the best representatives of a neighborhood, and neighborhoods all have different interests. And frankly, I think a lot of pro-rail people don't really have the firmest grip on public transit either.

So I found something interesting in Google Earth: here's a 2004 shot of the most structures that appeared in the plot at one time: the new IKEA being built behind the original 1991 STØR/IKEA (demolished soonafter), the SteaKountry Buffet, and a strip of stores that was razed around 2007. But in the 1980s shot (and 1978 shot), we have apartments in that spot. Yeah, I know they're only '70s garden apartments, but I still am curious to why there was absolutely no mention of it in any newspapers back then. Had Swamplot been around back then, it wouldn't have gone without a word--I mean, they covered Heights Plaza and Wilshire Village Apartments when they were demolished for new stores (Walmart and H-E-B respectively). Does anyone have any information about these?

Sorry, was responding to something in the previous thread which, upon further note, asked WHEN Galleria III would be razed, not IF. Actually, I'm curious myself if Galleria III will be completely flattened and rebuilt from scratch or gutted to steel beams and rebuilt from there, or if those parking garages will be retained (CityCentre retained the Town & Country Mall parking garages)

So apparently, Albertsons' parent company is in talks to buy Safeway (one link). Given that a lot of their markets overlap in several areas, including both Dallas and California, it would be interesting to see what happens next. I think that's still a bit of an odd concept with Albertsons returning to Houston area wearing the Randalls name (similar to Safeway and Randalls in '98). It's more than likely that Randalls will be driven out for good around the time of that happening.

Galleria III was listed on Swamplot's Demolition Report today. Guess it will be torn down, or at least gutted.

I listed the Third Ward, and I mentioned "others I inevitably missed". I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion on the way Houston should be (see this link) I am debating on the importance of freeways (and why they are not the destroyers of cities you purport them to be), the reasons they are removed, and why I feel it's okay for me to talk about Houston.