Freeway Deck Parks: time for a reality check
Another excellent, deeply analytical guest post from Oscar Slotboom, author of Houston Freeways. Yes, it is long, but it should tell you anything you want to know about potential deck parks in Houston (scroll down to its section if you have a particular one in mind).
---
Updated 4/29/2026: at an April 28 public meeting TxDOT officially announced the expansion of the Midtown cap to include the section between Fannin and San Jacinto. This post is updated for the change.
In 2025 Harris County Commissioner Lesley Briones announced she secured funding for a $2.5 million feasibility study for deck park(s) above the depressed section of Interstate 10 in the Heights, between Patterson Street and Washington Avenue. This potential deck park location is in addition to three potential zones of large deck parks in the North Houston Highway Improvement Project (NHHIP): Midtown, Eado and North Main.
Parks on decks above trenched freeways became trendy after the opening of Klyde Warren Park in Dallas in 2012 and its success. In TxDOT lingo, parks above freeways are called caps, and extra wide bridges with amenities along the sidewalks are called stitches.
But there's a harsh reality about freeway caps: they are very, very expensive, and local entities pay most or all of the cost. The minimum cost is around $50 million per acre, and costs rapidly escalate into the hundreds of millions for a single park and over $1 billion for ambitious plans like NHHIP. Cap park sponsors struggle for years, even 10 years or more, to arrange funding, even with phased implementations.
Let's take a look at cap projects in Dallas and plans in Austin to get an understanding of the costs and difficulties involved. Then I'll assess each of the proposed cap park zones in Houston for cost, benefit and feasibility.
Dallas
While freeway caps have been around since the 1970s, with well-known parks in Seattle (1976), Phoenix (1992) and San Diego (2001), the recent interest was sparked by Klyde Warren Park in Dallas, which opened in October 2012. Dallas had long envisioned a park above the Spur 366 Woodall Rodgers Freeway, which opened in 1983 and is situated between the north side of downtown and the booming, upscale "Uptown" district. Downtown interests began efforts to build the park in 2002 and secured $77 million by 2009 when construction began. Dallas was either smart or lucky in its timing, because the 2008 Great Recession lowered construction costs and made stimulus funds available. A 2012 donation from Kelcy Warren, who received naming rights and named the park for his son, helped close the remaining funding gap. The structural deck cost was $44.5 million, and total cost for the 5.2-acre park and all improvements was $110 million, $170 million in 2026 dollars.
The park was a huge success, with their website proclaiming, "From the moment the Park opened in 2012, we have welcomed more guests than we ever thought possible, representing every neighborhood in Dallas and beyond, as well as international visitors from around the world." Plans for phase 2, a small 1.7 acre extension to the west, were prepared in 2018. Then the trouble began.
The entire cost of phase 2 was estimated to be $76 million. In January 2022 bids were opened for the structural deck, and it was a budget-buster. The estimated cost was $47.2 million, but the low bid was $95.0 million, 101% above the estimate. The project could not proceed at that cost and was suspended. After a four-and-a-half year pause, the project is finally poised to receive bids for the structural deck in June. The estimated deck cost is $98.4 million. The overall cost including park amenities is $121 million, $71 million per acre. The elapsed time between the park opening and scheduled completion of phase 2 is 17 years.
This event building is part of Klyde Warren Park phase 2.
This lawn in Klyde Warren Park phase 2 will accommodate events, including an ice rink in winter.
On May 9 Dallas will open phase 1 of its second cap park, Halperin Park above I-35E alongside the Dallas Zoo in south Dallas. Named for the Halperin Foundation which donated $23 million, the park was planned in conjunction with the widening of I-35E south of downtown, which opened in 2022. The Dallas Morning News reports the 2.5-acre phase 1 is estimated to cost $122 million. The estimated total cost for phases 1 and 2 is reported to be $300 million for a total of 5.0 acres, which includes a $10 operating reserve fund.
Halperin Park nearing completion before its May 9, 2026 opening.
Dallas has used a mix of funding sources, with heavy reliance on private, philanthropic funding. Arranging funding has been a long struggle for each project, typically taking years. For the original Klyde Warren park, funding sources included around $27 million from donors, $20 million from the City of Dallas, $20 million from TxDOT and $17 million in stimulus funds. Funding for Halperin Park includes at least $62 million from private donors, $40 million from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (their equivalent to H-GAC) and $8 million from the City of Dallas.
| Year | Cost, millions | Acres | Cost per acre, millions |
|
| Klyde Warren Park | 2012 | $110 | 5.2 | $21.2 |
| Klyde Warren Park 2026 dollars |
2012 | $170 | 5.2 | $32.7 |
| Klyde Warren Park Phase 2 | 2029 | $121 | 1.7 | $71 |
| Halperin Park Phase 1 | 2026 | $122 | 2.5 | $48.8 |
| Halperin Park Ultimate | Future | $300 | 5.0 | $60 |
Austin
The $4.5 billion project to modernize Interstate 35 through central Austin will lower the freeway into a trench for 3.7 miles. The City of Austin and the University of Texas at Austin have been developing plans independently to build parks over the freeway. Together, these two programs are probably the most ambitious cap building effort in the country which will start construction in the next few years.
In November 2024 the City of Austin released a vision plan which includes options for up to 26.3 acres of cap parks. Below is a map of potential cap locations.
Artist depiction of proposed cap park in downtown Austin, Cesar Chavez to 4th Street.
This article has a good summary and graphic (shown below) of the seven scenarios which were considered. The cost estimates are between $53 and $56 million per acre, resulting in a $1.395 billion cost for the 26.3-acre full vision plan. For the full vision, the article states "it would cost roughly $900 million for the roadway and cap structures — not including any of the community amenities on top of the highway."
| Scenario | Cost, millions | Acres | Cost per acre, millions |
| 1 | $401 | 7.54 | $53.2 |
| 2 | $569 | 10.82 | $52.6 |
| 3 | $656 | * | |
| 4 | $666 | 12.29 | $54.2 |
| 5 | $772 | * | |
| 6 | $1,128 | 20.32 | $55.5 |
| Full vision | $1,395 | 26.3 | $53.0 |
*: acres was not readily determined from data
The full vision is far more than Austin can afford, and in May 2025 City of Austin staff recommended the least expensive scenario #1, estimated at $401 million including two caps, from Cesar Chavez to Fourth Street and between 11th and 12th streets. Austin Council approved a plan for the two caps with the addition of two smaller stitches in north Austin, and committed $104 million to build structural foundations during TxDOT's construction. In March 2026 Austin Council deferred any further financial commitments beyond the necessary structural elements, meaning that the actual decks would not be built as part of the TxDOT project and would be done later.
In March 2026, the cost estimate was $604 million for a total of 13.98 acres of caps and stitches, $43.2 million per acre. Annual operations and maintenance is estimated at $9 million per year. City of Austin staff raised alarms about the cost and urged City Council to pause plans.
Financially, the City of Austin is trying to fund its deck parks single-handedly, and discovering that it is a huge challenge, and perhaps not financially feasible. This is in contrast to Dallas and other cities which get only a small contribution from the city and rely heavily on private funding. In March 2026 the leading cap proponent on Austin City Council recognized the need for private funding participation, "What we’re trying to make sure over the next 4-5 years, is not only can we afford to build it, afford to maintain it, but how can we get the philanthropic, the business community to take a role."
Separately, the University of Texas at Austin will build a 10- to 12-acre cap in the campus area, from the MLK Jr. Blvd. to Dean Keeton. In May 2024 a preliminary estimate of $394 million was provided, subject to change depending on cap size and amenities, with annual operation and maintenance $10 million. In December 2024 UT-Austin committed $106 million for work which must be done in conjunction with construction, including design and (presumably) structural foundations. Information is limited because "UT has largely kept its I-35 plans private".
Houston: around $1.4 billion for all NHHIP caps
So what does this all mean for freeway caps in Houston? Let's apply a $50 million per acre cost to the potential caps in NHHIP. Potential cap areas are shown in NHHIP schematic maps, but acreage is not provided so I made an estimate based on the maps. The area for the caps in Midtown over I-69 (section 3A) was expanded in 2025 and again in April 2026, with the main cap now extending from the Metro tracks near Fannin to Austin Street. For the Midtown cap TxDOT will need to build structural elements to support sharply angled cross streets, which will reduce the locally-covered cost to build a park. A similar situation exists at North Main, where TxDOT may need to build a deck to accommodate the surface frontage roads. For consistency I'll use $50 million per acre for all parks.
| Cap Location | Approx Acres | Approx cost at $50 million/acre, millions |
| Midtown approved cap sites (as of April 28, 2026) | 6.25 | $312* |
| Eado all potential caps (10 blocks) | 17.7** | $885 |
| Eado, Rusk to Texas (2 blocks) | 3.35 | $168 |
| North Main | 5.0 | $250 |
| All potential caps | 28.9 | $1,446 |
* Local cost will likely be lower since TxDOT needs to include structural elements to accommodate sharply angled streets.
** A document on the Downtown Redevelopment Authority site (page 49) reports the cap size at 30 acres. My estimate of 17.7 acres is based on potential cap area indicated in schematics, excluding adjacent land areas, cross streets and cap sections which TxDOT must build, for example east of GRB to accommodate Hamilton Street.
This rough estimate is $1.4 billion for all potential caps in NHHIP. Obviously that's not going to happen in the lifetime of anyone reading this. But only a small percentage of this total cap acreage can be justified from cost-benefit considerations, and two small caps could be all that we need.
For Eado, the potential cap area is 10 blocks from Lamar Street (approximately in the middle of GRB) north to Commerce Street. For each block the cap area varies between 1.5 and 1.8 acres. Using an average of 1.65 acres, each block of cap can be estimated at $83 million.
Eado Caps receive attention from advocates
The Downtown Houston Redevelopment Authority (DHRA) is being proactive and appears to have the maximum possible ambition for the Eado cap. Depictions in board meeting documents in February 2024 (page 54) and March 2025 (page 49) show a cap over the entire 10-block section where a cap can be built, from Lamar to Commerce. Board meeting documents in April (page 24) and May (page 23) 2024 report that Mayor Whitmire initiated efforts to coordinate cap planning among all stakeholders and potential funders. However, I cannot find any mention of this effort on the Mayor's or City of Houston (CoH) web site.
This view is from the DHRA February 2024 board meeting information packet (page 55).
The March 2025 slide mentions a "30-acre area for assembly, destinations, events". I estimate the actual physical cap area suitable for parks to be 17.7 acres, which excludes caps TxDOT must build for Hamilton Street (which will be built over the freeway) and excludes adjacent land areas which would be included in cap parks.
This view is from the DHRA March 2025 board meeting information packet (page 49).
Building Eado caps will likely be a multi-decade effort, but a very important decision deadline will occur soon (perhaps within 3 years) when the Eado freeway design is finalized and construction plans are prepared for the scheduled (project 3D-1) construction between 2031 and 2037. The structural foundations for all future caps need to be incorporated into the design, which means the desired ultimate size of the cap needs to be decided. This decision will also require financial commitments for local project sponsors to start paying incremental additional costs for the cap foundations. In Austin, this deadline has been a big difficulty, because they have struggled to determine the size of cap they can ultimately afford to build, and also struggled to make advance payments required by TxDOT.
While the DHRA depiction is surely very preliminary and will be refined in the future, it suggests that most of the cap area would have minimal amenities, and would instead be open areas. This raises some questions in my mind.
Is there really a need for 30 acres of caps? I don't think so. After all, the area already has Discovery Green. It's better to have a small area of high-quality, highly attended parks, instead of a large area of mediocre, poorly attended parks. There's still an abundance of parking lots in east downtown and Eado which could become parks at a much lower cost than $50-million-per-acre caps.
How do you prevent the homeless sector from compromising such a huge area of cap parks? My view is that caps should be full of amenities including private businesses and family attractions because they will be stakeholders who will be highly motivated to keep the area desirable. Klyde Warren and Halperin Parks are packed with amenities. Building parks with mostly empty space will be cheaper, but could backfire if they are most suitable for the homeless sector. Realistically, it will be difficult to fill 18 acres of caps (or 30 acres of overall parks) with amenities.
How do they plan to pay for this? I estimate a 10-block buildout with full amenities on 18 acres to cost $885 million. Based on data from Austin, where structural caps (without surface improvements) are estimated to cost $900 million for 26.3 acres ($34 million per acre), the structural caps alone for a full 10-block buildout would cost $613 million. DHRA documents list the total area at 30 acres, which would likely be much more expensive than my estimate. The March 2024 meeting document (page 48) has a grant application for $12.0 million "to complete a Planning and Design Study to determine the additional structural support necessary for TxDOT to construct a thirty-acre deck across a below-grade segment of the highway project – The EaDo Cap Connector – sufficient to bear the load of future infrastructure improvements identified by the Downtown District, adjacent communities, and key partners." It appears the application was not selected to receive funding. This funding would be the first step in the process, and it already is quite costly, and all subsequent costs will be much higher.
How do park improvements get done in Houston?
Major park improvements are generally managed and financed by entities separate from CoH, with a heavy reliance on private donors, particularly the Kinder Foundation. For example, the Memorial Park Conservancy was formed in 2000 and absorbed into the Uptown District in 2013. Its web site says its 10-year plan launched in 2018 has a cost over $200 million, with funding sources including a $70 million gift from the Kinder Foundation. The Buffalo Bayou Partership manages improvements to parks along the bayou, relying heavily on gifts from the Kinder Foundation including $30 million in 2010 and $100 million 2022. The Hermann Park Conservancy web site reports that it has completed $121 million in improvements, and its annual reports include a listing of private donors who finance the work.
With its ongoing budget deficits and expensive union contracts, CoH can be expected to provide only a token financial contribution to the cost of freeway cap parks. The financial heavy lifting for cap parks will need to be done by private donors and management districts, with smaller amounts of support coming from various sources such as federal grants and contributions from local agencies like H-GAC, Harris County and CoH. To be successful, cap parks need a private entity managing the park, which is an ongoing expense.
Should cap parks be community parks or regional destinations?
Prior to Klyde Warren Park, freeway caps were community parks that attracted limited attendance from adjacent neighborhoods and were not a regional destination. Seattle's Freeway Park has a brutalist fountain which often doesn't work (think Tranquility Park). Hance Park over I-10 in Phoenix and Terlata Park over I-15 in San Diego are just very expensive community parks. Of course, Klyde Warren park became a regional destination and a model other cities aspired to emulate.
Because of the very high cost of cap parks, my view is that they should be built only if they have the potential to become regional destinations, or enhance existing destinations. Neighborhoods adjacent to freeways can probably receive far more benefit from much less expensive improvements, for example enhancing existing nearby parks, creating new parks on vacant land or improving walkability.
It will be very difficult for Houston, or any city, to duplicate the success of Klyde Warren Park in Dallas. Klyde Warren Park's location is ideal, adjacent to Dallas' performing arts district, in the middle of the museum district, alongside an upscale commercial area (similar to upper Kirby), near American Airlines Center arena, near a tourist area (Dealey Plaza), adjacent to the good side of downtown with attractive skyscrapers and in an area which was previously not served by a park.
None of the potential cap sites in Houston have the intrinsic assets of Klyde Warren's location. Let's analyze the cap park sites in Houston to assess the potential to become a regional destination.
Midtown
Work on the estimated $880 million Midtown section of I-69, between Spur 527 and SH 288 (South Freeway) and designated as section 3A, is scheduled to receive bids in October 2027 and be completed in 2033. It will be the first opportunity for caps in NHHIP. The size of proposed caps was expanded in 2025 (presentation), and at an April 28, 2026, public meeting TxDOT announced an additional expansion between Fannin and San Jacinto. I estimate the approved cap sites to cost around $312 million at $50 million/acre. However, costs covered by local entities are expected to be lower because TxDOT will need to build structural elements to accommodate bridges for the sharply angled street crossings.
This map, captured from a video shown at the April 28, 2026, public meeting, shows the newly-approved expanded size of the Midtown cap, filling a gap between Fannin and San Jacinto. This map shows the previously-approved cap size in 2025.
Site Weaknesses
- East of Caroline, the area is not suitable for businesses that attract crowds, such as bars, restaurants and concert venues, because it is mostly a neighborhood of homes with minimal parking.
- It is near the notorious Red Line Wheeler station, a longtime favorite hangout for the homeless community, and the area around Fannin and Main is a local hub for the homeless sector.
- There is currently negligible non-homeless pedestrian activity
- No attractions in the immediate area
- Minimal offices in the area (only the Ion)
- East of Caroline, the area will be difficult to redevelop with high-value assets because properties are homes on small lots
Strengths
- The Ion innovation district, backed by Rice University, is immediately adjacent to a potential cap site and is expected to grow in the future.
- Within walking distance of the Red Line Wheeler station
Other considerations
- Removing the elevated freeway and replacing it with a below-ground freeway is already a big benefit to the area
- There is an existing community park, Peggy Park, immediately adjacent to the freeway at Almeda Road. The recently approved cap expansion at Cleburne will effectively extend Peggy Park.
This all suggests the Midtown site has very low potential to become a regional destination and is likely to be a very expensive community park. It will require ongoing vigilance to ensure the homeless sector does not seize control of the park.
But the Ion District has the potential to transform the area, especially considering its affiliation with Rice University. This suggests a starter cap immediately adjacent to the Ion District, between San Jacinto and Caroline, could be a worthwhile investment to spur investment in the area. The TxDOT depiction of this park is around 1.9 acres, but the deck structure would be only 1.3 acres, so this park could potentially be done for $80 million, which is still expensive but in the realm of possible. The image below shows the location and conceptual TxDOT depiction.
This map shows a potential starter cap in Midtown, adjacent to the Ion District (image from a recent TxDOT presentation)
Eado
The Eado section of NHHIP, identified as project 3D-1, is the most difficult and expensive section of NHHIP. The TxDOT schedule shows construction between 2030 and 2037, but delay is likely due to TxDOT funding shortfalls.
As noted above, a cap can be built above the freeway for 10 blocks, from Lamar to Commerce, and downtown interests are attempting to plan for a full buildout. My estimate for a full buildout on around 18 acres of caps is $885 million. Downtown district presentations say the potential area is 30 acres.
Site Strengths
- Established attractions already exist in the area
- Stadiums create heavy pedestrian traffic
- The area is suitable for all types of attractions, including nightlife
- Redevelopment of adjacent areas is generally easy
- The area is served by the Purple/Green Line Eado-Stadium station
Weaknesses
- A large park, Discovery Green, already exists nearby. A cap park could dilute the attraction of Discovery Green.
- The north area near Commerce Street is a local homeless hub
Other considerations
- A cap park would be an incremental improvement to the area, not a transformative feature
- There is plenty of vacant and redevelopable land in the area. At this time, there is no need for a large area of expensive cap space.
Eado is already a destination. A cap park won't transform the area, but offers the potential to strengthen the area and contribute to future growth. A cap park would be an incremental improvement, so an incremental (and affordable) investment seems most justifiable. A reasonable and affordable cap is the two-block section between Rusk and Texas. I estimate this 3.35-acre cap will cost around $168 million.
This map shows the location of a potentially financially feasible cap in Eado.
Longer-term planning is a more difficult decision. If downtown interests want to retain the potential for a full 10-block buildout in the future, structural components must be included during construction in the 2030s. This will be a substantial cost, probably at least $100 million based on estimates for work in Austin. Local interests must arrange this funding soon, but future caps (in addition to Rusk-Texas cap I suggest) would probably occur in the distant future - between 2050 and 2100. It's possible future conditions won't justify all potential caps, so some structural foundations may never be used.
North Main
This part NNHIP is designated as section 2A. A recent TxDOT presentation shows construction between 2031 and 2036. This schedule is almost certain to be delayed, because the project is currently only 17% funded (page 69) and TxDOT funding is in decline.
The North Main potential cap site extends from south of North Main to north of Cottage Street. The area is around 5 acres, and an estimate using $50 million/acre gives a cost of $250 million. However, TxDOT will likely need to build structural cap elements between North Main and Cottage due to the freeway design, which would reduce the locally-covered cost to build a park on this 2.5 acre potential cap area
This is a view of the TxDOT schematic at north main, with the green hatch showing the potential cap.
Weaknesses
- No attractions, offices or pedestrian traffic in the area. (White Oak Music Hall is 0.4 miles away.)
- The area is not suitable for businesses which attract crowds, such as bars, restaurants and concert venues, because it is near a neighborhood of homes and has minimal parking.
- The eastern boundary is a cemetery, which cannot be redeveloped.
- All adjacent areas have low potential for redevelopment
Other considerations
- The locally-covered cost for the 2.5-acre section between North Main and Cottage is likely to be less than $50 million per acre.
A North Main cap is virtually certain to be an expensive community park, not a regional destination. Park attendance is likely to be very low because of the low population density in the area. The east side of the freeway has very little housing, and will never have more housing because of the cemetery. This area cannot justify the large expense of a cap park, but political considerations may outweigh economic reality.
Katy Freeway cap - a nonstarter
The Inner Katy Freeway corridor is the subject of the cap study mentioned at the start of this post. The practical limits of the study are from Patterson to Cottage Grove Park, about 1 mile. Any future cap park would be a few hundred feet long in this mile-long section.
A cap park on the 1.8 acre gap between Shepherd and Durham would cost around $90 million. With the freeway trench around 280 feet wide, building a cap park over the Katy Freeway will cost around $32 million per 100 feet, or $160 million for a 500-foot-long (3.2 acre) cap park. (For comparison, the 450-foot-long, 2.5 acre Halperin Park in Dallas has a price tag of $122 million.)
This area is a mix of low-density land use including low-density housing, lower-tier office buildings, strip centers and the usual freeway-facing businesses like fast food and convenience stores with gasoline pumps. A big complication is future plans for the corridor by Metro, which has currently-suspended plans for an elevated bus rapid transit line, and TxDOT, which plans to add four managed lanes, likely on an elevated structure.
Weaknesses
- Metro has long-term plans to build an elevated bus line between the eastbound frontage road and main lanes. Planning is on hold at this time. This would be incompatible with a cap park.
- TxDOT has plans to build four managed lanes to connect the existing Katy Freeway managed lanes with the NHHIP managed lanes. The most recent public meeting showed two options, elevated lanes in the middle of the freeway and lanes at freeway level, which require substantial new right-of-way. Elevated lanes in the middle of the freeway would be incompatible with a cap park.
- There are no attractions, pedestrian traffic or high density developments in the immediate area.
- There is no obvious location for a park on this long section. Any park location on this 1-mile section is equally weak.
- Any park on this section is not convenient for most people living in the Heights.
Other considerations
- There is already a community park, Cottage Grove Park, along the freeway. It could be enhanced at a far lower cost.
- The White Oak Bayou trails and MKT pedestrian trail already exist nearby.
- Memorial Park is within walking distance of housing near the west end of this section.
- While the Katy Freeway is already below ground level, it may not be low enough for a park at ground level. Existing street bridges are thin (cast-in-place, not using usual thick prefabricated beams) because of the shallow depth of the freeway, and also have below-standard vertical clearance (around 15'3"). A cap with thick prefabricated beams, space for ventilation fans and vertical clearance meeting modern TxDOT freight corridor standards (18'6") will likely need to be raised well above ground level. The feasibility study will surely consider this problem.
Any cap park on this section of the Katy Freeway would almost certainly be a minimally-used community park. Available funding to improve the area would surely be much more effectively used for other area improvements.
The $2.5 million feasibility study is good revenue for consultants and scores points with anti-freeway folks. But realistically, an expensive cap park makes no sense and is very unlikely to ever be built. I rate a Katy Freeway cap park as a nonstarter due to high cost, low benefit, existing nearby parks and multiple complications with future plans and technical issues.
Pierce Elevated Park
In January 2023 I posted about a recreation-oriented park on the Pierce Elevated, which becomes a possibility after the Pierce elevated is retired from highway service in the late 2030s. I believe the recreation component will ensure high use from local residents (think Memorial Park Loop), and the cost will be much lower than a cap park because the structure already exists - it just needs to be repurposed.
An acreage comparison between the Pierce Elevated and a cap park is not an apple-to-apple comparison because the the Pierce Elevated is linear. The Pierce structure is 100 feet wide and around 4800 feet long, which is 11 acres, but the full width is not needed for the recreation features. I'm not in a position to provide a cost estimate for Pierce Elevated Park, but a hypothetical cost of $50 to $100 million seems reasonable, and TxDOT would probably pay a large share because it would be responsible for demolition. Pierce Elevated Park has high potential to be transformative and a regional destination, even something unique nationwide. Any consideration of freeway parks should keep Pierce Elevated Park high on the list of options.
The reality check
So here's the reality check. Building cap parks is very expensive and requires a dedicated, long-term effort by a project sponsor, preferably a private foundation, with substantial private funding required. Based on experience in Dallas, securing $120 million in funding over a long time horizon like 5-10 years is difficult to achieve. The idea of building 18 acres of cap parks over NHHIP freeways at a cost of $1.4 billion is both a financial nonstarter and makes no sense, because such a large amount of cap parks would be overkill and mostly underutilized. The idea of building a cap park over the Katy Freeway mainly because there are a lot of anti-freeway folks in the area would also be a big waste of money.
Building a successful destination like Klyde Warren Park requires a unique set of ingredients, and perhaps only two sites in Houston can deliver success at an affordable cost: a two-block cap in Eado and a one-block cap in Midtown. My rough estimate for these two sites is $170 million for Eado and $80 million for Midtown, $250 million total, a cost which should be affordable. Cap advocates and political leadership should think in terms of "How can we afford to build two small caps that have a big impact, and make them regional destinations", not "Let's build a large amount of caps at a huge cost because they cover up freeways and make anti-freeway folks happy."
Labels: infrastructure, parks, philanthropy, planning, quality of place
posted by Max Concrete @ 1:15 PM
0 comments
