Houston19514

However it was developed and however much it followed or didn't follow the original plan, and by whomever it was developed, the fact is, of the approximately 32 blocks that were cleared for the development, all but 2 or 3 have been fully developed, with solid plans for one of those and "plans" for another (6 HC).

From the plat posted above and from the HCAD ownership records, it looks to be a little more than 1/2 of the block.

FIFY

Sorry to go further off course, but these posts made me curious. From the linked rendering, Here are the blocks and what is on them: First City Tower Two Houston Center LyondellBasel Tower 4 Houston Center/Shops @ HC (2 blocks) First City Parking Garage/DT Club Four Seasons Hotel Fulbright Tower Houston Center Garage 1 5 Houston Center One Park Place Vacant Block (Discovery West) 1550 on the Green/Embassy Suites Discovery Green (approx 6 1/2 blocks) Hess Tower Parkside Residential/Hess Parking Marriott Marquis (1 1/2 blocks) George R Brown (approx. 6 blocks) Vacant Block (6 Houston Center site) 2nd Vacant Block north of HC (may have been part of Houston Center) So of the original Texas Eastern/Houston Center property, it looks like we are down to 2 or 3 blocks that remain to be redeveloped.

Well, it moved about 7 years ago, into all new digs. So, probably not so dated any more...

Well... clearly not. The phrase "under eminent domain" doesn't really have any meaning. The property belongs to the property owner until title is transferred to the state and the property owner is free to do with it as he/she pleases (subject to other laws and regulations, yadda yadda yadda...) until title is transferred. For the I-45 project, TXDoT has already made some scattered acquisitions without using eminent domain (such as the 3 blocks down on Chartres, only one of which has been demolished, last I checked). I don't know if they have been making other offers in the corridor or not, but I'm pretty sure they have not yet exercised the power of eminent domain anywhere on the route or started any condemnation proceedings. There is no figurative veil that they put over a property causing it to be "under eminent domain" and therefore keeping property owners from making improvements or using it as they please. The government has to either buy it or shut up.

Wow. I really like that design. Is this something that is happening?

For all practical purposes, Lower Westheimer is already one lane in each direction. In most places where there are nominally two lanes, the lane closest to the curb is unusable. Here are some traffic counts I could find. Kirby just north of Southwest Freeway carried about 22,000 cars per day. Westheimer just east of Shepherd carries a little less than half that number. 11th Street between Heights and Studewood also carried less than half. (All counts were from 2019.) https://hgac.public.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=hgac

Sure looks like it almost has to be. But they clearly have the location address wrong. I've noticed before that these TDLR permits very often have errors or misstatements in them... Hospitality, Inc. is the record owner of the Landry's warehouse at the Loop and I-10 (7310 Old Katy Rd) that was recently discussed in the other thread. Interesting that Tilman is apparently going to renovate his existing warehouse building in to a practice facility.

"Nightmare" might be the most overused word in Houston, but in this case, it might be apt. Perhaps a road diet, but Kirby one-lane in each direction all the way from Westheimer to Holcombe? Not a good plan.

The loop is completed on SH-146

Here's hoping they are more worthwhile than Etta. Friends in Chicago tell me it's just okay.

You sound like a "corporate-speak" apologist, or maybe practitioner. 😉 They are of course free to practice corporate-speak and we are free to call them out on their nonsense and hypocrisy.

From Houston Endowment's FAQs: -- Will Houston Endowment maintain the adjacent park? The Houston Endowment headquarters sits adjacent to Spotts Park. The park, and all equipment on its property, are managed by the City of Houston Parks and Recreation Department. -- Will you open the building to the public? Like most office spaces, the building will not be open to the public. It is designed to be a workspace for our team and invited collaborators. -- Can nonprofits or other organizations rent space for meetings or events? The building may not be booked to hold meetings for activities not related to Houston Endowment business. Houston Endowment plans to host convenings and gatherings in collaboration with its community partners that will be on an invite-only basis. -- Are you having a grand opening event for the community to see the space? We will not host a grand opening. We plan to put the building straight to work. Moreover, construction on our event space will continue through the end of the year. All of that, after, on the same page of their website, patting themselves on the back for being "immersed in the developing neighborhood bordered by Buffalo Bayou, Montrose, and the Houston Heights. The centrally located space allows the Foundation, a perpetual institution, the opportunity to have a permanent home and to contribute to the growth of the neighborhood." I'm afraid the Houston Endowment may have gone seriously astray.

The more I read about this building, the less I like it, particularly the move by the Houston Endowment. From the first announcement, I didn't like the move because it seems to be entirely contrary to the vision and wishes of the man who made the endowment possible (Jesse Jones). Few people (perhaps no one) in our history have been more committed to or done more for downtown Houston than Jesse Jones. For his Endowment to move out of downtown to me seems disrespectful. Now, they are green-washing themselves in the glories of their environmentally responsible, sustainable, blah blah blah new building. How is it remotely environmentally sound and sustainable to build a new building for yourself (on formerly greenspace), leaving existing space vacant (in a market with tons of vacant existing space).

Yes, would it have killed the "reporter" to include a few actual facts and context? That wouldn't even require investigation. Our local media is despicable. I'm not sure I could continue to live here if I watched local news. ;-)

I would put zero faith in that "reporting". I am not buying for a second that TxDOT has forced anyone to relocate without covering their costs, as is required by federal (and probably state) law. (And of course the "reporter" has zero interest in investigating that claim or to even be skeptical of it...). Did they even reach out to TxDOT for a response to that claim? Seems like they did not.

Here's some news on the Bridge Lighting -- A report was given at Houston First's Operations Committee meeting in April: "The bridges were a partnership project between TxDOT, Montrose Management District ("MMD") and Houston Galveston Area Council with a $3.5 Million budget. The lights were initially turned on just before Super Bowl LI in 2017. MMD was responsible for maintaining the bridges [sic], but was dissolved in 2018, resulting in the City of Houston transferring the responsibility of the lighting system on the bridges to Houston First in early 2019. Shortly before taking over the responsibility, deterioration of the lighting system was noticed. It will cost approximately $1.5 million to make the lights operable and $90,000 a year to operate and maintain. The president/CEO emphasized that this project is not within the mission of HFC but the increase costs will need to be considered when planning the budget." So, at least it's on someone's radar...

Can we correct the thread title? It's called Space Center Houston. Not Houston Space Center. (and FWIW, yes, it is a nonprofit organization, not owned by NASA, but it's a bit of an overstatement to say it is not "affiliated" with NASA.)

We already have this in Midtown, where the parallel parking spaces separate the traffic lanes from the bike lane.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone suggest we couldn't have a 100-story building because of hurricanes. If I had seen such a claim, I would have disregarded it as being just as nonsensical and ignorant as the idea that we can't have tunnels or subways because of the water table. In any event, we could clearly have a 1,049 foot building, regardless of hurricanes; we already have 1,002 feet. It seems unlikely another 47 feet would make a difference. Aside from all that, what seems unpossible about this building is the floor count and height. 100 stories in 1,049 feet for super-luxury condos and hotel - average floor-to-floor height of 10.49 feet. Seems unlikely. (Edited to add additional info: They advertise 10' ceiling heights in the condos which would allow six inches for the floor/ceiling structure between floors, and it appears they are playing games with the floor count. it looks like they have no level 2, 4, 6, probably no 13, because hotels generally don't have 13th floors, 18, 20, 22, 25, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, or 41. So, 1,049 feet, but 100 stories? Hardly. https://www.waldorfastoriadowntown.com

One can typically step off a curb without stepping directly in front of a vehicle. I didn't really do much "interpreting" of the law; just showed you what the laws is. You gave us false information. Just own it and move on. Well, it gets a little more into the weeds. No one ever has the right to run over a pedestrian, but if the pedestrian crosses not in a crosswalk, you have to start looking at contributory negligence, etc. Much more complicated and difficult.

link?

What is your evidence re: the 5th floor? And to be clear, he did not spend the night. He made a brief stop at the hotel to appear at a dinner or lunch, then went on to the Sam Houston Coliseum for a banquet. Then he went back to Houston International Airport and flew on to Fort Worth, where he spent the night.

I live in the real world, where the law means what it says and not something else. I call BS on your having seen motorists get ticketed for failing to stop for people waiting to cross in either Washington or Colorado, because (1) that's not the law in either place and police don't tend to write tickets for activities that do not violate the law and (2) any such ticket would get thrown out because, again, that's not the law in either place. The law in Washington and Colorado (the locations of your two photos) is functionally identical to the law in Texas. Washington: "(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. (2) No pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop." Colorado: "When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger." Texas: "(a) The operator of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway in a crosswalk if: (1) no traffic control signal is in place or in operation; and (2) the pedestrian is: (A) on the half of the roadway in which the vehicle is traveling; or (B) approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger. (b) Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible for the vehicle operator to stop and yield.