bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

jctexan wrote:
I grew up there, so, yeah, I'd live there. But to be fair, that was a time when no one would live downtown so it became a ghost town at night, therefore crime was bad, etc. the only reason to go downtown was for work or a ticket.

The reason the car culture works (despite the article saying the recovery of Houston's economy after the oil crash was due to building buildings :)) is that Houston has tons and tons of space. So they don't have to concentrate in one area. And therefore, they don't have a majority of people trying to get to the same area, as we do here. Houston has 4 or 5 distinct "downtowns" all with a focus on a different economy (medical center, energy corridor, rice university, downtown "downtown", etc) and all with tons of retail/bar/community. It works precisely bc it is so spread out. Would that work here? I would argue (as it seems a lot of people argue) that it wouldn't. My only point is that car culture isn't necessarily bad from an economic standpoint, it just simply can't work here due to the logistics (everyone trying to get into the same place at the same time). I think you and I agree, my point is that car culture and economic prosperity can go hand in hand. But as others have said, not here.

Actually, I think you are still missing the point. Even in Texas, where I lived for many years, and still visit almost monthly, the downtown areas of all major cities are moving towards the same concept as in other places: live, work, play, shop locally. In the San Antonio downtown area, which was deserted and depressing (outside of the River Walk area) they are now putting up lofts that include commercial, retail and restaurants. The same happened in Dallas, and Houston. Austin already had something similar. The goal is to spur development that allows people to live, work and play all within small areas. Of course, in places like Texas, a car is still a necessity, as distances can be daunting and impractical for mass transit, but the downtown areas are being revitalized as it is being done all over the US.

jctexan wrote:
I grew up there, so, yeah, I'd live there. But to be fair, that was a time when no one would live downtown so it became a ghost town at night, therefore crime was bad, etc. the only reason to go downtown was for work or a ticket.

The reason the car culture works (despite the article saying the recovery of Houston's economy after the oil crash was due to building buildings :)) is that Houston has tons and tons of space. So they don't have to concentrate in one area. And therefore, they don't have a majority of people trying to get to the same area, as we do here. Houston has 4 or 5 distinct "downtowns" all with a focus on a different economy (medical center, energy corridor, rice university, downtown "downtown", etc) and all with tons of retail/bar/community. It works precisely bc it is so spread out. Would that work here? I would argue (as it seems a lot of people argue) that it wouldn't. My only point is that car culture isn't necessarily bad from an economic standpoint, it just simply can't work here due to the logistics (everyone trying to get into the same place at the same time). I think you and I agree, my point is that car culture and economic prosperity can go hand in hand. But as others have said, not here.

jctexan wrote:
That picture you posted is of Houston in the 80s. It has continued to grow and prosper and remained one of the strongest economies in the country (and was all but recession proof). Not sure that was the best city to choose to attack the inherent badness of cars. :)

Yvonne wrote:
A hypocrite is someone who owns a car but tells someone else parking is not an issue for public buildings. When the point is made that the Medical Center has parking which protects car owners in the neighboring Van Vorst area, you said I should move. Of course you are a hypocrite. There is not one public elected official who has given up their car. Unfortunately, Ward E did not elect Dan Levin, probably the only authentic person who doesn't own a car.

Yvonne wrote:
No wonder you use a phony name Pebble, you are mean or really a bully. But I forgive you because you don't know better.

Yvonne wrote:
No wonder you use a phony name Pebble, you are mean or really a bully. But I forgive you because you don't know better.

Yvonne wrote:
Logic is missing on jclist. Because I said parking should be part of a large development that involved the public I am called "twisted." Personally, I believe some people who believe a city can live without parking is suffering from denial. Pebble, you know I am right about the Medical Center, interesting the old site had no parking for the public. Mostly likely, they had to deal with neighbors complaining about parking. While they downsized the number of beds at the new hospital, they made sure parking was included big time.

Yvonne wrote:
If the Medical Center did not provide parking in its present location, what do you think would happen? Visitors would be parking in the Van Vorst neighborhood causing more chaos. Providing parking protects the residents who live near this new complex. It is the reason I suggest the underutilized County Plaza. We are already in debt for $59 million for that place, why add more debt?

Yvonne wrote:
If you own and use a car Pebble then you are a hypocrite when I say parking should be available for public buildings. I am sure you will use your car to get to this new complex. The city should have parking so residents like you do not take parking away from local residents. The people in that ward should not have worry about parking when they return home.

Yvonne wrote:
If you own and use a car Pebble then you are a hypocrite when I say parking should be available for public buildings. I am sure you will use your car to get to this new complex. The city should have parking so residents like you do not take parking away from local residents. The people in that ward should not have worry about parking when they return home.

Yvonne wrote:
On this video in 2010, citizen Candice Osborne, tells the city council she has car payments (0:36 and 1:45) then she goes on to state she promised a car for her son (3:57) and puts $50.00 away each month for this promise (4:07). In the real world, not the make-believe world, people use and drive cars.
http://youtu.be/ixiNMMh-00k

Yvonne wrote:
It will not have parking that the county has. There is no lite rail where I live. Lite Rail serves only a small section of JC not the majority.

Yvonne wrote:
It is about parking, if you leave downtown JC, residents of this city have cars. Some have 2 or more cars because different spouses drive to work. If they rent, then their tenants also drive. Stop living in your small micro world where everything evolves around downtown. Or as one of the candidates called, "the beautiful people."

Yvonne wrote:
It will not have parking that the county has. There is no lite rail where I live. Lite Rail serves only a small section of JC not the majority.

Yvonne wrote:
Have you been to County Plaza, dtjcview, the former Block Property? The building in underutilized. Some people have offices that are over 1,000 square feet. The building is too large. It has plenty of parking, we should be using that site. It is near Montgomery St. which means it is also close to the bus system.