Are there any Houstonian's in favor of the I-45 expansion? (Howe: homes, live in)

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Fixing that interchange is literally the first piece of the entire I-45/downtown interchange rebuild. That'll be fixed before anything else is complete with this project.

Any more complaints?

What’s the point of removing the pierce elevated?

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by Dopo

What’s the point of removing the pierce elevated?

I'd counter by asking what's the point of keeping it? Straightening the north-south connection between 288/59 and 45 will help by itself. Better ramp geometry is a definite advantage of the new design before you even talk about expanded lanes or anything like that.

The biggest advantage imo - downtown and midtown will be able to grow into one another without the Pierce dividing the two. I don't really get why people want to keep it, frankly.

[atadytic19]

Originally Posted by Dopo

What’s the point of removing the pierce elevated?

It's just about 1 mile of highways that gives 1,000 miles of headache. Longer stretches of highway are re-routed all the time.

And are they actually getting rid of it? Has there been a decision?

I don't see why they would throw more money at it to keep it.

One benefit in removing it will be gaining valuable real estate in a very visual area. It seems like most of downtown Houston traffic goes north south, rather than east - west. So visually the land gained in that area is more appealing than land to the east.

I am not yet sold on the Elevated park idea. It just seems like a waste of space. Iam not all that fond of the highline in NY. Maybe if they can build in the space below and make the sides look like the promenade plantee in Paris then that would 100% be a great asset.

Would be a nice transition between downtown and Midtown:https://images.app.goo.gl/Zng5feWnPL7rHHK19

[LocalPlanner]

Though it's not part of the project, I totally don't agree with the elevated park concept. Houston parks need shade, how will that be provided? The underneath area will still be unpleasant, unless some equally compelling concept is being considered for it. And the potential space for new private development won't materialize if the structure is kept in place.

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Though it's not part of the project, I totally don't agree with the elevated park concept. Houston parks need shade, how will that be provided? The underneath area will still be unpleasant, unless some equally compelling concept is being considered for it. And the potential space for new private development won't materialize if the structure is kept in place.

Agreed. And if there is a compelling concept for the underneath area, why didn’t we do it 10-20-30-40 years ago?

[atadytic19]

Originally Posted by oil capital

Agreed. And if there is a compelling concept for the underneath area, why didn’t we do it 10-20-30-40 years ago?

Looking at the other cities who did create Elevated parks, they didn't engage the underneath area until the park was created. Further, very few of this Elevated parks engage the parts underneath.

For clarity I have not seen any plans to do anything under Pierce Elevated. I said I am not sold on the Elevated park but would like the idea more if all that space was put to better use like building underneath. The city didn't have plans 40 years ago to build anything underneath and they don't have plans for that now.

[oil capital]

Originally Posted by atadytic19

Looking at the other cities who did create Elevated parks, they didn't engage the underneath area until the park was created. Further, very few of this Elevated parks engage the parts underneath.

For clarity I have not seen any plans to do anything under Pierce Elevated. I said I am not sold on the Elevated park but would like the idea more if all that space was put to better use like building underneath. The city didn't have plans 40 years ago to build anything underneath and they don't have plans for that now.

Are there any other elevated parks that have areas underneath that could be developed? I’m not aware of any.

I thought some of the skypark renderings showed some development underneath. Renderings are not plans per se (as can be said with regard to the whole skypark concept). If there are not plans for the underneath, I’d give it a hard no.

[atadytic19]

Originally Posted by oil capital

Are there any other elevated parks that have areas underneath that could be developed? I’m not aware of any.

I thought some of the skypark renderings showed some development underneath. Renderings are not plans per se (as can be said with regard to the whole skypark concept). If there are not plans for the underneath, I’d give it a hard no.

Yes, there are, including portions of Highline.
The Pierce renderings I have seen leave the underneath empty like this:

https://images.app.goo.gl/7puSH8F9RRQwo8DYA

Salesforce Park is another example of an elevated park worth usable space and they use that space as a transit hub.

The metropolitan Parasol is another example. It has building space underneath, but it is a lot less space than Pierce. It has shopping and a restaurant.

Niederhafen Promenade is another raised park but the underneath is roadway. Kinda like the plans for 59, but elevated instead of at grade with roads below ground.

I already mentioned the Promenade Plantee as another example.

I just think that if ONE of the reasons for the re-route is to eliminate the divide between downtown and Midtown, then either remove it completely or improve the look at ground level.

Building an elevated highway makes use of the remnants but it does nothing to improve the divide between the two neighborhoods.

Another reason given is gaining prime real estate. Leaving the underneath empty, or as parking like they currently do, isn't really gaining space.

Basically it so look just as ugly 20 years from now as it did 20 years ago. So I would give it a hard no too

[Mr. Clutch]

Elevated park concept is a hard maybe for me. It all depends on design and how they engage it with the surroundings. What happens underneath is a big concern for sure, and any concept would have to make sure to engage the buildings next to it too. At the end of the day, I'm fine with that part of it not happening unless they really have pulled out all the stops for it design-wise. No point in having a huge linear park that ends up being an eyesore or not used to its utmost potential.

[oil capital]

There are a couple of renderings of "underneath" development in the attached presentation. I remain skeptical of the concept and it's construction costs, and perhaps more important, ongoing maintenance costs

Sorry, I forgot to include the link (pages 83 and 84):

http://www.downtowntirz.com/downtown...-Materials.pdf