mfastx Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Huh??Who said anything about building buildings on top of the pierce elevated? I'm talkin bout tearing it down to reveal the remainder of the surface lots that have been hidden under there forever and using them as real estate again. If we straight up tear it down fine, I was assuming that it would be tunneled roughly where it is now. It would be very difficult to construct buildings over a tunneled freeway. If we just tear it down and don't construct an underground highway in it's place, then yea I guess, although they would likely remain surface for the next 25-50 years at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 So there will be a tunnel under pierce? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 You are all confusing each other. haha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I don't see it taking 50 years for those lots be developed, south downtown is quickly becoming THE residential district of downtown with the Beaconsfield, Houston House, Skyhouse 1 and 2, Fairfield residential, Leon Capital, Block 334, Allied orion and The Hamilton all in the same general area. Once all the newer ones comes online it's only going to spur more residential in that area, and the remaining surface lots anre gonna get scooped up. I'd say closer to 5-10 years before we see more residential plus retail projects filling up the remaining south downtown surface lots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 So there will be a tunnel under pierce? I was under the impression that one of the proposals was tearing down the Pierce and tunneling 45 along the same alignment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 That's a very old proposal.. Pretty sure all "tunnel" options were thrown out in favor of trench/cut and cover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 a pierce elevated park would increase real estate values along the perimeter and buildings would connect with it, weaving it into the pedestrian fabric of the city. https://www.bisnow.com/archives/newsletter/new-york/1668-how-the-high-line-has-changed-manhattan-part-1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 That's a very old proposal.. Pretty sure all "tunnel" options were thrown out in favor of trench/cut and cover Yea.. sorry I wasn't reading enough in this thread. If the choice is to create a park out of it or just simply demolish it then I'd say demo it. With a cut and cover, you can really only put a park or some sort of public space on the surface though, which would be fine too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunstar Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'm voting to not do anything, leave it as it is, unless someone can explain why what is there already is not sustainable. I've lived here long enough to dread these major highway projects that drag on for years. They've been working on the 610-290 interchange for what seems like an eternity. There are definitely benefits here, but they are far outweighed by the cost and headaches it will cause. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 Reconstructing an interchange that is heavily trafficked to one that expands upon and redirects traffic in a way that wasn't already established takes quite a bit of work and time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 (edited) Reconstructing an interchange that is heavily trafficked to one that expands upon and redirects traffic in a way that wasn't already established takes quite a bit of work and time... Exactly. It's only been 4 years, with completion in sight. The benefits already far outweigh the cost and so-called headaches (which in reality have been pretty few and short-lived for 610-290 interchange project). Edited September 21, 2015 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 I'm voting to not do anything, leave it as it is, unless someone can explain why what is there already is not sustainable. I've lived here long enough to dread these major highway projects that drag on for years. They've been working on the 610-290 interchange for what seems like an eternity. There are definitely benefits here, but they are far outweighed by the cost and headaches it will cause. You can say that about any project. This opinion seems valid until a bridge collapses and dozens are dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunstar Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 You can say that about any project. This opinion seems valid until a bridge collapses and dozens are dead. So you're saying the Pierce elevated is about to collapse? Is there some structural reason this is being done? I can remember when they rebuilt the Pierce elevated last time. Was it shoddy construction? If so, I'll change my opinion, but I just don't understand the benefit of doing this project other than removing some supposed barrier between downtown and midtown or building a sky park. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 So you're saying the Pierce elevated is about to collapse? Is there some structural reason this is being done? I can remember when they rebuilt the Pierce elevated last time. Was it shoddy construction? If so, I'll change my opinion, but I just don't understand the benefit of doing this project other than removing some supposed barrier between downtown and midtown or building a sky park.The Pierce is not going to collapse barring some freak disaster. Unlike the I-10 widening or the 610/US-290 rebuild, I fail to see how traffic patterns would really be better downtown. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curbur Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 The Pierce is not going to collapse barring some freak disaster. Unlike the I-10 widening or the 610/US-290 rebuild, I fail to see how traffic patterns would really be better downtown. I don't think it's to help traffic patterns downtown really, but to help spur more growth downtown and provide for a larger district for the urban core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I don't think it's to help traffic patterns downtown really, but to help spur more growth downtown and provide for a larger district for the urban core.Why would that be a good thing? Urban cores are overrated, and aren't a Houston sort of concept. Downtown and Midtown were way more interesting before massive redevelopment started. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Why would that be a good thing? Urban cores are overrated, and aren't a Houston sort of concept. Downtown and Midtown were way more interesting before massive redevelopment started. Damn no one realizes you're still trolling 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkultra25 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Damn no one realizes you're still trolling Certainly in the case of Midtown, I can't argue with the statement that it was more interesting before it was redeveloped. Some of us remember when the prevailing culture in that area was Vietnamese, as reflected by the residents, the businesses, and eventually the well-known street signs. Compare that with the current mix of undistinguished apartments, trendy restaurants, and brotastic bars. Note that "more interesting" does NOT mean "better". It just means more interesting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I see what you mean, but it's not what he meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Damn no one realizes you're still trolling Actually, I am not trolling. Houston isn't as cool as it was in the 80s. There's more to do, and more restaurants, but it's not quirky and cool. Tearing down the Pierce would contribute to a greater loss of cool. If I wanted urban core stuff, I would move to somewhere that grew that way. Edited October 2, 2015 by Ross 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Oh damn my bad, did I give it away? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Oh damn my bad, did I give it away? Having a dissenting opinion isn't trolling in and of itself. It's when you do things like "KEEPING THE PIERCE ELEVATED UP IS LIKE SUPPORTING SLAVERY" or some other nonsense like that. Not that any of us HAIFers would dare sink to such levels, of course. *coughs loudly* (Or if you're being a straight-up asshole, like that banned Park West guy) Edited October 2, 2015 by IronTiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Why would that be a good thing? Urban cores are overrated, and aren't a Houston sort of concept. Downtown and Midtown were way more interesting before massive redevelopment started.IT, when that's the defense, then yeah I assume that's trolling. Cmon man, you know I'm better than that. I like both sides of this issue, and don't really have a solid opinion either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) IT, when that's the defense, then yeah I assume that's trolling. Cmon man, you know I'm better than that. I like both sides of this issue, and don't really have a solid opinion either way. It is a bit blunt, but you know how many posts I've seen on HAIF in support of a fantasy Manhattan-like "urban core"? Far too many. Were you here for the this thread, for instance? ** Edit: To me, it's like all those Internet sentiments where New Yorkers have said "I liked Times Square before they sanitized it" or something along those lines. Are those not valid complaints? Edited October 2, 2015 by IronTiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Nah man those are just typical hot takes, but to say that Houston was better before all of this development in its core is the hottest take of them all. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADCS Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Actually, I am not trolling. Houston isn't as cool as it was in the 80s. There's more to do, and more restaurants, but it's not quirky and cool. Tearing down the Pierce would contribute to a greater loss of cool. If I wanted urban core stuff, I would move to somewhere that grew that way. There are plenty of wonderful suburbs for you to move to if that's what you like, along with suburban-style areas in the inner loop. Please stop getting in the way of those of us who like urban environments and want to develop some of that in Houston. There's enough space for both styles of development. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Nah man those are just typical hot takes, but to say that Houston was better before all of this development in its core is the hottest take of them all.Back when I went to A&M, there would be constant talk in message boards about how "Old Army" was much better--stories of dorm rooms with no air conditioning even into the late 1990s, having food fights in the dining hall instead of the Chick-fil-a Express in the basement, and the like. The whole "urban core" idea that "Abandon the Pierce" promote is based on what San Francisco or New York City is like. Even the whole "Pierce Skypark" idea is cribbed straight from the High Line! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I mean, the idea of opening up downtown to the south and west is not the only reason to take down the Pierce, but it's a decent one. The Elevated Park idea is nice but it's not gonna happen. I just don't see how keeping the Pierce to discourage development is anywhere near a great, or even decent, idea. There are good reason to keep it, like the park, but saying downtown is better off staying a 9-5 center of activity just does not jive with the way downtown is unfolding. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativehoustonion Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 On the Pierce Elevated is the small pods from "Logan's Run" to bypass the traffic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I mean, the idea of opening up downtown to the south and west is not the only reason to take down the Pierce, but it's a decent one. The Elevated Park idea is nice but it's not gonna happen. I just don't see how keeping the Pierce to discourage development is anywhere near a great, or even decent, idea. There are good reason to keep it, like the park, but saying downtown is better off staying a 9-5 center of activity just does not jive with the way downtown is unfolding.Who said the Pierce was going to discourage development? I remember some veiled comment about the "canyon" could discourage EaDo, but Midtown? As it stands, the Pierce isn't going to do anything bad to Midtown, which has been improving for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.