West Gray Streetcar: Commonwealth Redevelopment
Update (2/10/09): Graphics adjusted to improve clarity.
I’ve been thinking more about the West Gray Streetcar concept, and the more I think about it the more I like it. For those who didn’t read it before, the gist of the concept is to convert West Gray and Peden St. into a one-way pair from Shepherd to Valentine St, where it would seamlessly connect to Gray / Webster in Midtown. A new Streetcar line could run on that alignment, and then head into Downtown via Smith/Louisiana. This would connect the dense residential neighborhoods along West Gray to major shopping, entertainment, and employment districts.
The problem, of course, is that there’s a gap in Peden St. at Commonwealth St. The great thing is, between the City Owned Municipal Service Center and the shopping center across the street, you’ve got a ton of land in the hands of just a few owners right at that point. So what do you do about it? You buy the land and redevelop the area as a pedestrian-oriented urban center.
How might that look?
How about like this:
Or in plan view, before and after:
Original Area, Waugh and West Gray
After pedestrian-oriented redevelopment
Here’s what you’re seeing in the plan view above:
- Light Gray: Redeveloped Buildings
- Tan: Existing Structures retained
- Dark Gray: Parking Garages
This type of redevelopment opportunity exists all over the city, especially in areas where big-box retail exists surrounded by dense, urban development. The key is to use the redevelopment to reconnect the street pattern and improve neighborhood circulation, so that the final product results in improved traffic instead of the typical worsening you see when streets are taken out to make room for big developments.
The city’s role in such a project would be pretty straightforward. If they decided to create a streetcar (most likely in partnership with METRO to operate it), they could go through the normal ROW acquisition and design process to improve the streets. In areas where a gap exists, they could use an EDC (economic development corporation) to buy the land and redevelop it (or sell the remaining parcels for redevelopment) after the streets have been put in.
These are the kinds of proactive transportation projects the city needs to pursue. Fix the network, connect the street pattern, and recoup some of the costs through redevelopment activity when the streets have been fixed. At the end of the day we’d have a better transportation system and nice new neighborhood centers; not a bad outcome at all.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: EDC, Houston, network, pedestrian, real estate, redevelopment, Streetcar, traffic, transportation, urban
Share:
9 Comments
Permalink
Andrew – Not a great proposal because of the large reduction in green space. I’m not suggesting the polar opposite either: a park with a train station in the center of it. But why one way lines on Gray and Peden? If Metro doubles up on Gray and runs both lines there, they can build a transit station at the River Oaks Center between Dunlavy and Rosline on Gray.
Permalink
By loss of green space do you mean loss of surface parking?
The diagram shown adds to and improves the existing park southeast of the multi-service center, and creates a new park where there’s currently only surface parking in the redeveloped River Oaks center.
The reason to double up on Gray and Peden is there isn’t enough ROW for any kind of serious improvement to Gray, but if you pair them you can create a more efficient traffic pattern and add transit and pedestrian improvements without needing tremendous additional ROW.
More ROW would be needed on Peden, certainly, but if the street is designed right it would not cost buildings, only parking spaces and a few feet of of some front yards. It’s not perfect, but its a lot better than tearing out an entire row of buildings to make Gray wide enough on its own.
Permalink
By green space, I mean actual land with grass and trees on it, sir. You’ve put parking garages on the spots that are green now according to Google Maps. If this is pedestrian friendly, why all the parking? I agree with your idea that surface parking should be swapped out for garaged parking — that’s an efficient use of space. Three parking garages in such a small area is not, unless you’re planning to make this into a Metro Park-N-Ride. The parking across W. Gray is barely used now. You are going to need several feet of anyone’s yard’s on Peden if that too is going to be pedestrian friendly, which means sidewalks several feet wide – 4 feet minimum, on each side of the street.
Permalink
Ok, I think I must not have rendered my concept very clearly, I’m sorry if that’s the case, but here’s my thought process:
The area is about a 1/4 mile in diameter, roughly 13 city blocks in size. For 13 blocks, 3 parking garages (as the ONLY off-street parking) doesn’t seem excessive to me. All the garages are in wrap-around buildings, even the one in the NW corner has a retail ground floor. Also, all of these buildings are represented as 3 or 4 story structures. At the end of the day, that much residential and commercial space would require a lot of parking, more than is on the ground right now, and shared garages are the best solution for that if your primary concern is creating as much human space as you can.
Also, the streetscape would be a pretty inviting, even quasi-green space as compared to what it is now. You’re talking about a change from this:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=29.753184,-95.400864&spn=0,359.994335&z=19&layer=c&cbll=29.753199,-95.400054&panoid=W2uO0PJMunk58DoDL4Etqg&cbp=12,93.64056303567794,,0,9.784331033839981
To this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/14577687@N07/1487363345/
As far as green space goes, if it doesn’t look like this in the diagram then I apologize for the poor illustration, but the size of the park and plaza together is greater than the previous park and ‘front lawn’ from the multi-service center. The perspective rendering isn’t showing the total green space, only the new ‘square’ and the buildings surrounding it. Also, the residential buildings would have courtyards which I imagine would be largely green space (like this: http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/lsmp/2007/11/img/greenstar/greenstar-18.jpg). Some might be private, but some might be open as well. I’ve changed these areas to green on this drawing:
http://neohouston.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/labeledplan2.png
So, if I’ve somehow illustrated the idea poorly, I’m sorry. For what it’s worth, my philosophy for design is always to protect what park space exists and add to it whenever possible. The only possible concession to this is if a marginal decrease in the quantity of green space results in a better quality green space and a much more sustainable neighborhood surrounding. In this case, you are losing the open space in front of the multi-service center, but you’re gaining a much better neighborhood, a new ‘town square’ of sorts across the street, and a nicer, bigger park immediately southeast of the site. That’s what I’d envision, anyway, even if it’s not clear in the drawing.
Thanks for your feedback, David, it’s much appreciated!
Permalink
I definitely like where your head’s at with the streetcar for West Gray. It almost goes without saying, though, that any such plan will get nowhere without community support. What I’m not seeing is what’s in it for people living on Peden. Most of that street is residential and I doubt the residents would take kindly to having their street made into a thoroughfare. Peden is also not a very natural choice for the streetcar since it has very few businesses and passes behind many buildings that face West Gray.
In addition, one of the problems you seek to address, low speeds on West Gray, is at odds with one of your goals, a more pedestrian-friendly area. Walkable areas typically have lower speeds so that traffic is not intimidating to pedestrians.
Anyhow, back to streetcars: I think they might best be put in the curb lanes on West Gray, which would remain more or less in its present configuration. Though this likely wouldn’t improve traffic or parking conditions, it at least wouldn’t make them much worse. Streetscape improvements would do a lot to spruce up the area and you would save the cost of wholesale reconstruction of Peden and Oneil, the latter of which is far too narrow to handle what you suggest.
This is a good discussion to have and I certainly applaud your thought and effort.
Permalink
Why couldn’t West Dallas be used instead of Peden? That is a street that is already used as a thoroughfare and is an area of continuing redevelopment.
Anyway….just a thought. I love the idea of expanding transit and pedestrian neighborhoods in Houston. One of the city’s biggest weaknesses in my mind.
Permalink
West Dallas is certainly a possibility. I would be concerned that the two streets are too far apart. One would have to either walk 6 blocks or ride the streetcar all the way around in order to return in the direction he came.
Permalink
I agree with James that West Dallas is too far from West Gray to work as a pair street. They need to be side by side.
There would have to be some takings in order to make Peden work, and there are a few blocks along Peden where that would probably be pretty controversial.
It’s important to consider the overall value to the city as a whole of such improvements, though. Peden is a street in transition, much of it is the back of commercial properties already, and some portions are vacant or quite dilapidated. Other structures along the route are well maintained older properties and new development. It’s a hodge-podge.
While the traffic volume on Peden would be more with my proposal than it is today, it would still only be two lanes of traffic. The opportunity with a one-way street is to design it such that traffic flows very smoothly but at relatively low speeds, 25 MPH or so.
As Gray St. exists today the speed limit is 30. However, the lack of a turn lane, the number of driveways along the street, areas where parking is allowed in the right lane, and the complexity of major intersections (like Gray/Montrose) all contribute to make the average speed of travel on West Gray much lower, probably closer to 18-20 miles per hour.
A one way pair doesn’t need turning lanes, and it creates much simpler intersections with fewer light cycles required. If you pair that with other improvements like driveway consolidation and signal timing (which are logical to include in any major re-build of a street), you could make the flow of traffic very smooth and calm.
Therefore, after these kind of improvements, Peden would not be a bad street to live on.
However, if these kinds of programs become reality, there will be people who are upset that the character of their street has changed. One possible strategy to help these people is to use a city EDC to provide relocation assistance to property owners who wanted it. The EDC could then consolidate lots when possible, and in general could make a small amount of revenue for the city by selling these properties after reconstruction of the street is complete.
Permalink
This concept is hype. Only beef: why swing Peden down so far south? Why not just extend it right across and stick a roundabout at the Waugh/Commonwealth/Haddon/Peden mess?
Quick, Dirty and Nasty: http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9541/ohyeahhg4.jpg
Note that this also requires a lot less ROW acquisition than the “urban planner’s wet dream” version above. Simplicity is Divine.