Houston19514

You mentioned Chicago and New York City. Let's start with Chicago. That city is pretty parallel to our beloved H-Town as far as size, suburbs and downtown goes. And believe it or not, it is just as alienating and unwelcoming as Houston is. Due mainly to the traffic downtown. There really isn't a downtown happening spot, ya know, all of that is up and around Wicker Park and Lincoln, where there is more parks and less traffic. Hmmmmm....

Okay, let's start with Chicago. Have you ever walked or driven down North Michigan Avenue? Wide streets full of cars and sidewalks packed with people. It apparently seems plenty welcoming for millions of people every year.

And as far as New York City goes, have you ever driven there? I would think that only clueless tourists and taxi drivers would bother driving in that city. Cars do not have the right of way even when the light is green, the pedestrian is king of the road. As it is, as it should be, and look at the results. The most vibrant city in the world. Of course it's not all due to pedestrian friendly streets though, I'm not that dumb. But it plays a big part.

Yes, I have driven in New York City, any number of times. You kind of step on your point on this one... if cars and a "welcoming downtown center" are "mutually elmininative" how does New York City manage to be the most vibrant city in the world while having wide streets PACKED with cars. Thank you for making my point for me and proving beyond a doubt that, in fact, cars and a "welcoming downtown center" are NOT mutually exclusive.

It is misleading to say that cars do not have the right of way, even on green lights in Manhattan. That often appears to be the case, because the cars can't move through intersections because the traffic is backed up, then once the traffic clears the intersection, the pedestrians have taken over. If you really think cars in Manhattan don't have the right of way even on green, try stepping in the street in front of a taxicab at midnight or so, when the traffic is relatively free-flowing.

Someone mentioned streetmalls. I have yet to see one that WASN'T thriving.

Nicolette St. in Minneaopolis is doing so well, that the success has spilt over to Hennepin St, one block north.

And the 16th Street Mall in Denver. The only cars allowed on that street are the shuttle busses that run up and down all day long. And I think even that is too much. But the place is bustling day in and day out.

That's nice. You've come up with two successful pedestrian malls, both of which have buses running in them. Maybe you haven't seen one that wasn't thriving because many of the failed ones have been torn out. In the 1970s many downtowns closed major streets and converted them to pedestrian malls as a way to attract customers. The success of such conversions has been minimal, and twenty years later most have been converted back into traffic streets. "Of the roughly 200 pedestrian malls that once dotted the country, at least half are in some form of transformation..."1 The following excerpt from a research project by Carol Sullivan2 on the impact of pedestrian traffic on downtown health begins to explain the situation.

... most approaches to downtown revitalization include improvements to the pedestrian environment in an effort to approximate the environment of the shopping center.

...The United States is filled with beautifully designed pedestrian malls and streetscapes lined by empty buildings. "Attractive" pedestrian environments do not actually attract anyone. Conversely, many urban places which have not been provided with pedestrian "amenities" are crowded with people and thriving businesses. Grey, in his study of People and Downtown, concluded that:

"Malls and public spaces ...depend for their value upon their relationship to peoples' activity patterns. It must be understood why people are there and how they use the immediate environment."3

Others agree that pedestrian malls have been less than successful.

One of the biggest fads in the 70s and early 80s was the malling of downtown America. Cities all over the United States closed off streets to traffic and parking, planted trees, built fountains, installed benches, all to create pedestrian-friendly retail areas.

Many towns are ripping out those malls.

...no one realized how important auto traffic would be to the health of downtown retailers.

We've got traffic sailing by our cities instead of stopping in them...

Ann Arbor tried it differently. The city permits two-way traffic on its downtown Main Street. But parking is limited; sidewalks are extra-wide for outdoor cafes; and the city closes the street several days each summer for art fairs and other special events. The result is a bustling atmosphere all day and evening.4

1 Jennifer Steinhauer. 1996. "When Shoppers Walk Away From Pedestrian Malls." New York Times (5 November). p. C4.

2 Carol Sullivan. "Form and Function in Downtown Revitalization." Doctor of Architecture dissertation. The University of Michigan.

3 Grey. People and Downtown. 1970. p. xix.

4 John Gallagher. "Taking back the streets." Detroit Free Press. September 23, 1991. p. 6F.

Here is a link to a chart showing some details of pedestrian malls. Of the 72 listed, 56 have been at least partially reopened to automobile traffic. 9 are listed as successful and have remained closed to automobile traffic (3 of which allow bus traffic). An additional 7 are listed as "struggling" and in 5 of those, reopening to automobile traffic is proposed.

cars and a welcoming downtown center are mutually eliminative.

Huh?? The mind reels... When one thinks of the most thriving, exciting downtowns in America, certainly Chicago and New York City must be at the top of the list. It goes without saying that both are rather heavily infested with cars. One could go on at great length listing other successful downtowns filled with automobile traffic and also listing failed downtowns that tried to eliminate automobiles with pedestrian malls and such.

I think you exaggerate. Downtown Houston currently has 4,597 hotel rooms. Quadruple that number would be 18,388 rooms.

According to the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, the entire Indianapolis Metropolitan Area has 21,500 hotel rooms. I doubt that more than 85% of the metro's hotel rooms are in downtown.

According to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission, the entire St. Louis area has 35,000 hotel rooms and there are 7,600 within one mile of their downtown convention complex. (Anything further than one mile would be stretching the definition of downtown St. Louis beyond reality)

As you can see, both of these cities have well below 18,388 downtown hotel rooms.

That being said, I agree with the overall point that downtown Houston still has a smaller number of hotel rooms than one could expect in a city of its size.

Houston has opened a lot of hotels latley, but we are still very low considering the number of rooms.  Even cities like St Louis and Indianapolis have quadruple the number of rooms that Houston has in its downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only in the minds of Tulsans who are living in something of a time warp is Tulsa still known as the "Oil Capital of the World."

Tulsa, OK is known as the "Oil Capital of the World", we are known as the "Energy Capital of the World."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To review, you told us earlier in this thread that if we "study the Census numbers as they are now and the future projections, you can easily see that the population of people moving into this area will not moving further and further out into the suburbs." I asked where in the census numbers you were able to glean this prediction that population would NOT continue to move further and further out into the suburbs. I don't see it in the census numbers or projections. Since you did not bother to answer my question, but rather changed the subject, I'm guess you don't really seen any such thing in the census numbers and projections either. If you do, I'm eager for an explanation. Instead of answering my simple question of what in the census numbers you based your conclusion upon, you have promised to dig up some studies showing why we need to plan intelligently for the future. I'm all in favor of planning for the future, and hopefully intelligently. But we can't very well plan intelligently for the future if we base our projections on what we personally desire rather than on what the trends and projections really show. If we plan for a future based on your "easily seen" projection that the millions of people who will be moving to Houston will be moving into the inner city, but they in fact choose to live out in the outer suburbs, well, that doesn't strike me as very intelligent planning.

You asked upon what I based my belief regarding where Houston's growth is occurring. My use of the word "belief" was intentional. It is merely my impression based on reading various news and information sources. I don't have a source at hand, but surely you are not going to suggest that is currently incorrect, are you? And I have not seen anything to suggest that it will change drastically in the future, neither for Houston or for any other city in the USA, your personal preferences notwithstanding.

Also, please note, I did not make, and am not making, an argument in favor of the Grand Parkway. I am officialy agnostic on the Grand Parkway.

"but I believe the vast majority of Houston's growth remains in the suburbs, and outer suburbs at that"

And this belief is based upon what? What you see today is not what will be in the future. When I have more time, I will try to dig up some studies to impress upon you the need to plan intelligently for the future, not just for today. Why spend over $500 million for a 50 mile segment of the Grand Parkway (that price tag just the starting price tag for Segment F-2 alone, by the way) to serve only the part of the population wealthy enough to own cars. Why not take that same amount of money and spend it on improving inner city transportation for that segment of our population that either chooses to go without an automobile or cannot afford to own one? Paving our way out of congestion is not working.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is it in the "census numbers as they are now and the future projections" that supposedly tells us that "the population of people moving into this area will not be moving further and further out into the suburbs", but rather will be filling up the denser CBD... Maybe I'm being obtuse, but I see nothing at all that indicates that. Other studies and statistics may indicate a slightly greater tendency towards moving into the inner city than in the past (and the boom in housing in Houston's inner city supports that), but I believe the vast majority of Houston's growth remains in the suburbs, and outer suburbs at that. What in the census numbers and future projections gives any indication that that is about to change? If Houston is going to grow by 2 or 3 million over the coming 20 years, that will of course require the construction of a large number of new dwelling units and my guess is that a rather large majority of those will be outside the beltway.

"It may likewise call into question the wisdom of projects such as the Grand Parkway, unless it is assumed that the migrant population will cluster in areas near the planned road."

Thank you for mentioning this point yet again. People keep clamoring that the population explosion predicted for the Greater Houston area is justification enough for the Grand Parkway, but if you really study the Census numbers as they are now and the future projections, you can easily see that the population of people moving into this area will not moving further and further out into the suburbs. They will however be filling up the denser CBD even more so than it is right now, which more than proves the point for creating either an improved light rail system or some sort of public transportation system that is efficient and affordable for the masses. Heavy construction contractors, automobile dealerships, concrete and cement companies find none of this music to their ears however and pay big bucks to lobbyists to make sure Houston keeps expanding ever outward, rather than doing infill renovation projects that would preclude their participation to a greater degree. The Grand Parkway is a 170 mile loop to nowhere that doesn't even form a circle anymore (because it is not projected to even go past 59 now) dreamed up by developers to enrich their pockets only. It is not a transportation congestion-reliever type project and it was never intended to be one. That has always been just a convenient smoke-screen used by slick talking engineers employed by the contractor firms to TxDOT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The articles I've seen are not entirely clear on the point, but my impression was that the $80 million was the total projected cost for acquisition and development of the park. Do you have other information?

I hear you on the negativity, so apologies . . . but the $80 million isn't money they are going to spend to develop the park, just acquire it. 

Underground levels of the GRB? That's news to me, and they don't appear on the GRB's floorplans on their website... what do they have on these underground levels?

The actual alignment proposals, as of the last Metro public workshop, has two options of subway underneath either Mckinney or Walker streets.  The third option is a surface rail, like the red line, on RUSK.

If the Mckinney one is chosen, then, they would have to tunnel deeper to get underneath of the 5 or so underground levels of the GRB.  This alignment would continue straight underneath the GRB under Walker Street, then pop up on a portal somewhere around Dowling Street.

If the Walker one is chosen, then the plan is to remain subway right under where the proposed Central Park would be, and curve towards the north and bypass the GRB, and therefore, not have tunnel as deep compared to the Mckinney alignment.  Again, the portal would emerge somewhere around Dowling Street.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but there is nothing in the article we are all commenting on that gives the slightest hint that Mr. Delay is "indeed holding up the process."

I am sorry, but why should anyone have to chill when it comes to DeLay?

The man single-handedly witheld federal MONEY earmarked for Houston forcing us to pay way more than our share. He then said he wouldn't hi-jack future plans for rail if the voters passed the referendum. Well, guess what? The plan did pass and he is indeed holding up the process. Seems like flip-flopping to me.

If they're not planning to close off that part of Crawford they certainly should.

It stops 2 blocks south at Polk anyway for the Toyota Center.

largeTexas, where did you see renderings of the park? It seems a little surprising that there would be renderings when the article said that design work will being in 2005. But of course we all know how much faith we should put in a newspaper...

I have never before read anything about "express" trains from Northline to IAH. As far as I can tell from Metro's plan documents, there is no such plan. At the very least, they plan a stop at Greenspoint. I hope they will run both express trains and "local" service trains, like they do in Chicago. I would like to see them run "Express" trains all the way to downtown, perhaps stopping at Greenspoint and Northline on the way. Of course running both express and local trains on the same tracks requires additional trackage, so that the local service trains can be stopped at a station while the express train zips on by on the adjacent tracks.

Re: Tom Delay. Some of you guys need to chill a bit. What is wrong with examining all the available technologies? Why should Houston NOT push the envelope a bit? While the light rail is not identical in every detail to 19th century streetcars, the technology is essentially the same - an electric-powered car riding on steel rails, sharing the street with other traffic. Yes, we now have level boarding; yes, we now have doors that open wide; yes, we now have air conditioning; yes, we no longer stop along the way like buses do. Many comfort and convenience improvements have been made in buses and cars over the last 100 years as well... Nevertheless, they are still buses and cars and we don't pretend they are not the same basic technology we were enjoying 100 years ago.

Flatline, it looks like you are correct about the location. Since my earlier post, I found the press release on the Mayor's website. It includes a little aerial view with the parkland colored in green, I guess. (It doesn't exactly explain the picture. For example, there is also some land marked in yellow... I don't know if that will also be part of the park or not... anyway, here is the link.

Mayor's new downtown park

The park is a very exciting development. Any info on the exact boundaries of it? I hope they'll build a spectacular fountain there. Something around which people can gather just to watch the water and lights. It's amazing what a little water and some colored lights can do. Throw in some choreographed music and it's even better.

Yes, as a matter of fact, the ads were incorrect, as were the Chronicle's headlines both then and now. Houston does not have and never has had anything approaching the nation's "dirtiest air." Air pollution is comprised of a number of components (I think 5 or 6). The ozone count is only one of those 5 or six components, and the ozone count is the ONLY component for which Houston's air has an issue. Many other cities have issues with more than one component, and while it is very hard to come up with a conclusive answer to the question of which city has the nation's dirtiest air, I believe most experts agree that it is not Houston. Atlanta is a better candidate and I believe Dallas is at least as good of a candidate.

quote=VelvetJ,Tuesday, October 5th, 2004 @ 10:52am]

And how have Tom Delay, John Culberson, and the Republicans affected our air quality? Talk about writing the book on "Business and Profit Before ALL Things, Including People". If action had been taken earlier, maybe "a new one" wouldn't have had to be ripped for Brown and the Democrates to "let" happen.

Besides, were the ads incorrect?

Never ceases to amaze me.