Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Posted: **09 May 2017 21:04**

(whatever is happening with) Pearl/Cesar Chavez expressways

Saw this passage in another thread, and it reminded me to post (because I've been forgetful about that). Did the city run out of $$$, or are the workers on extended coffee break? The truck that caused the gas line rupture and fire *several* weeks ago is still there also. I remember hearing about the supposed 'old basements found that needed filling in first' excuse, but that was months and months ago. Enough time has passed that all the work could have been long ago done by now.

Posted: **10 May 2017 12:56**

I've been wondering about this myself. It's also a blight to the area leaving a burned out truck sitting there.

Posted: **11 May 2017 20:32**

joshua.dodd wrote:I've been wondering about this myself. It's also a blight to the area leaving a burned out truck sitting there.

The burnt husk of the truck is finally gone.

Posted: **04 Nov 2017 12:40**

In recent days, there has *finally* been some activity on the project. Wood forms, rebar, and even some concrete has appeared along Cesar Chavez. Hopefully this is a good sign that things will pick up and get done sooner rather than later.

Posted: **06 Nov 2017 22:47**

What's caused it to stall for so long?

Posted: **06 Nov 2017 23:04**

Is this the same thing as the Carpenter Park project, or something separate? I don't believe I'm familiar with this.

Posted: **07 Nov 2017 14:08**

It's somewhat related. The old cut-throughs that were part of Carpenter Park that got Central-Chavez traffic to Pearl and vice-versa were removed a while ago. Also the rusty metal-sheet sculpture that ran through the park was removed in advance of the park redo. The part I actually referenced up the thread is just to the south of Carpenter Park. Cesar Chavez between Commerce and Pacific is being widened to accomodate 2-way traffic, and Pearl will subsequently become 2-way in the same vicinity.

Posted: **07 Nov 2017 14:28**

Wait why are we widening Cesar Chavez. What fresh hell is this?

Posted: **07 Nov 2017 14:31**

I always think those townhomes would be really nice places to live.. except that you'd be living on a seven-lane highway. Thanks but no thanks. And now we want to extend it?

Posted: **07 Nov 2017 15:16**

a six-lane divided boulevard with turn lanes, wider sidewalks, landscaping, pedestrian lighting, benches, trash receptacles, signal upgrades, storm drainage, water and wastewater improvements for Cesar Chavez Boulevard (Central Expressway) from Commerce Street to Live Oak Street and Pearl Expressway from Pacific Avenue to Live Oak Street. The contract will also include the removal of the existing pavement sections and be replaced by sod inside the Carpenter Plaza Park. One-way traffic operation on Live Oak Street will be converted to a two-way traffic operation from Olive Street to Cesar Chavez Boulevard (Central Expressway).

Posted: **07 Nov 2017 17:43**

cowboyeagle05 wrote:
words

It was more of an existential why than a literal one.

It's cute that they're including benches on the seven-lane road.

The wider sidewalks are nice, if width is a given. But it would have been nicer to just make the existing four-lane road into a two-way street and not add the additional three* lanes.

*They're calling it a six-lane road, but they're neglecting to include the center turn lane. Probably because a seven-lane road sounds terrible.

Posted: **07 Nov 2017 19:07**

Not very pedestrian friendly, but, then again, this area is pretty much right up against I-345 anyway, and wasn't pedestrian friendly to begin with. Maybe the silver lining is, is that it might encourage some dense development between Cesar Chavez and I-345. I think this sliver of land won't be pedestrian friendly, but, who knows, maybe there is demand for an office building or apartment building with quick and easy access to get in and out of Downtown. I'm pretty sure that's half the reason why the Harwood district has been so successful.

Posted: **08 Nov 2017 01:38**

DPatel304 wrote:Not very pedestrian friendly, but, then again, this area is pretty much right up against I-345 anyway, and wasn't pedestrian friendly to begin with. Maybe the silver lining is, is that it might encourage some dense development between Cesar Chavez and I-345. I think this sliver of land won't be pedestrian friendly, but, who knows, maybe there is demand for an office building or apartment building with quick and easy access to get in and out of Downtown. I'm pretty sure that's half the reason why the Harwood district has been so successful.

Eh, seven lanes is good for regional transportation, but it's a big negative for residential development and even commercial (see for examples AT&T asking for a lane reduction for 4 to 3 on Commerce). Most of the streets with most of the deveopment in VP/Uptown are on 3 or 4 lane roads. McKinnon is the exception, and I'd say the development along there has been in spite of its 5 lanes, not because of it (plus the rumblings that Harwood wants a road diet). 7 lanes is even less appealing to development, though I suppose the landscaping mitigates some of the negative impact.

It could still be a net positive for the neighborhood if it solved some significant access issues of getting into and out of the neighborhood, but I suspect that 4 lanes was enough capacity and just some configuration changes could have addressed whatever problems there were.

Posted: **08 Nov 2017 09:24**

Ah ok, well, in that case, there is no silver lining. For the record, I wasn't for this expansion, just trying to see the positive side of it.

But yes, I would have been fine with an expansion to a 4 lane two-way street instead, and then putting the southern part of the road on a diet.

Posted: **08 Nov 2017 09:49**

If I remember Angela Hunt fought to make sure the project included pedestrian design elements including crosswalks that actually work. You can only fight against the car driven model so much at once. She was also still fighting the good fight on multiple other projects including things like the Mockingbird bridge.

Plus look at it this way if we do get the I-345 tear down this is the kind of boulevard that TXDOT will most likely demand and get in return to make traffic work in this part of Downtown. The bad thing isn't I never saw the actual drawings for the redo nor can I google it enough to find anything but Dallas Observer discussions over it.

What was told to be built and dressed up in lipstick could be worse or better than expected...

Posted: **08 Nov 2017 11:19**

cowboyeagle05 wrote:If I remember Angela Hunt fought to make sure the project included pedestrian design elements including crosswalks that actually work. You can only fight against the car driven model so much at once. She was also still fighting the good fight on multiple other projects including things like the Mockingbird bridge.

Plus look at it this way if we do get the I-345 tear down this is the kind of boulevard that TXDOT will most likely demand and get in return to make traffic work in this part of Downtown. The bad thing isn't I never saw the actual drawings for the redo nor can I google it enough to find anything but Dallas Observer discussions over it.

What was told to be built and dressed up in lipstick could be worse or better than expected...

I'm not saying it needed to have a road diet, just that it was unnecessary to add additional lanes.

A road like this would be acceptable for an I-345 teardown because of the whole regional transportation bit, but Cesar Chavez doesn't play that role.

Posted: **10 Nov 2017 10:48**

tanzoak wrote:A road like this would be acceptable for an I-345 teardown because of the whole regional transportation bit, but Cesar Chavez doesn't play that role.

The con man leading the I-345 fight and his idiot followers try to justify the removal economically by saying the ROW would be used for billions of dollars in real estate development. No new thoroughfare there. So Chavez and Good-Latimer would have to carry the load.

Posted: **10 Nov 2017 16:15**

Hannibal Lecter wrote:
tanzoak wrote:A road like this would be acceptable for an I-345 teardown because of the whole regional transportation bit, but Cesar Chavez doesn't play that role.

The con man leading the I-345 fight and his idiot followers try to justify the removal economically by saying the ROW would be used for billions of dollars in real estate development. No new thoroughfare there. So Chavez and Good-Latimer would have to carry the load.

What are you talking about? Yes, there would be a new thoroughfare there. A 6-lane divided boulevard (so 7 lanes including turn lanes). That's the same size as Northwest Highway (though presumably prettier and with better ped infra). That would still free up a lot of acreage for development because interstate highways take up a ton of space.

Leading your argument with ad hominems is not very compelling. Maybe you're highly skeptical that it's a good idea, and that's fine, but it's not a bunch of idiots with no background in the field who are saying it might be a good idea. TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion compared to sinking it below grade in their preliminary study.

Posted: **12 Nov 2017 09:47**

Maybe you're highly skeptical that it's a good idea, and that's fine, but it's not a bunch of idiots with no background in the field who are saying it might be a good idea.

The traffic loads on most of the city of Dallas' streets, outside of highways, pales in comparison to the traffic carried on suburban roads even though most are designed the same/have the same number of lanes, etc. Essentially Dallas has been created as a city where the only way to get anywhere is by using a highway. So driving by highway is the only thing they know.

Posted: **13 Nov 2017 12:40**

tanzoak wrote:TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion compared to sinking it below grade in their preliminary study.

This is the statement we went round and round for 2 pages about. I completely disagree with this statement. Its apples to oranges, and the statement is a false generalization.

Apples - tear down + this + that + this and that + that and this and a few other things

=

Oranges - Trench

Posted: **13 Nov 2017 12:58**

Alex Rodriguez wrote:
tanzoak wrote:TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion compared to sinking it below grade in their preliminary study.

This is the statement we went round and round for 2 pages about. I completely disagree with this statement. Its apples to oranges, and the statement is a false generalization.

Apples - tear down + this + that + this and that + that and this and a few other things

=

Oranges - Trench

Dude, just stop with this.

Yes, the traffic models for both alternatives included projects besides the alternative itself. The same projects--i.e. I-30 rebuild, Lowest Stemmons, Southern Gateway--for both. I'm sorry that you would prefer that they didn't include those, but regardless they're in both. Also, those projects are definitely happening, and TxDOT is announcing $3B in funding for them later this month. So..

Just stop.

There's no need for "round and round" because this is very clear. And also is the only way anyone would ever do alternative analysis. I'm sorry that you're apparently having difficulty parsing it, but stop fake newsing up multiple threads.

Posted: **13 Nov 2017 13:01**

TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion, if you rebuild the entire Dallas freeway system around it, compared to sinking it below grade and doing virtually nothing else, in their preliminary study"

Fixed it for you.

Posted: **13 Nov 2017 13:04**

And by the way you did agree at one point with me about the differences in the scenarios...

tanzoak wrote:
Alex Rodriguez wrote:And by the way, I'm not saying that anyone is trying to pull a fast one. What I'm saying is that for each option to have basically the same traffic impact, per the report:

**Modify - you remove some ramps for CBD access
**Below Grade - Trench I-345, partial rebuild of I45 and 366/75 interchanges. Major work on Ross
**Tear down - I-30 Project Pegasus, Removal of I45 from MLK to 30 w/ Surface Street connections, Rebuild of 366/75, Major work on Good Latimer, Major work on Cesar Chavez.

If you do the above to each of the 3 options you end up with basically the same traffic numbers for the freeway system. The surface street traffic still goes up in the Tear Down option even in this report.

Yes, that is correct. Those are the 3 projects.

Posted: **13 Nov 2017 13:07**

Alex Rodriguez wrote:TxDOT and HNTB/Kimley-Horn's traffic engineers, for instance, found a limited overall increase in congestion, if you rebuild the entire Dallas freeway system around it, compared to sinking it below grade and doing virtually nothing else, in their preliminary study"

Fixed it for you.

Ugh, I'm just sinking to the troll bait, but so that everyone understands this not actually the case, here is an easy to read graphic.

*System for each scenario assumes the following projects or
operational improvements are constructed: Southern Gateway,
Lowest Stemmons, and Trinity Parkway 4 Lane 45MPH concept.

Posted: **13 Nov 2017 13:08**

Alex Rodriguez wrote:And by the way you did agree at one point with me about the differences in the scenarios...

tanzoak wrote:
Alex Rodriguez wrote:And by the way, I'm not saying that anyone is trying to pull a fast one. What I'm saying is that for each option to have basically the same traffic impact, per the report:

**Modify - you remove some ramps for CBD access
**Below Grade - Trench I-345, partial rebuild of I45 and 366/75 interchanges. Major work on Ross
**Tear down - I-30 Project Pegasus, Removal of I45 from MLK to 30 w/ Surface Street connections, Rebuild of 366/75, Major work on Good Latimer, Major work on Cesar Chavez.

If you do the above to each of the 3 options you end up with basically the same traffic numbers for the freeway system. The surface street traffic still goes up in the Tear Down option even in this report.

Yes, that is correct. Those are the 3 projects.

Yes, those are still correct descriptions of the alternatives. The fact that you worded it to sound like the tear-down one is a crazy intense project compared to a ho-hum below-grade alternative doesn't change the underlying facts.

Posted: **15 Nov 2017 13:20**

Does anyone know what the streets going to look like once its finished? I like that the side of Cesar Chavez by the farmers market has trees in the middle. Will this new road have that as well or will it all just be a huge rode?

Posted: **16 Nov 2017 10:13**

I have been honestly pursuing the answer to that question for over a month. I can find all the articles talking about the debate on the project related to the historical buildings they moved but I can no longer find even the blueprints they once partially revealed when the council voted on final concept. I believe they never officially released final renderings/plans the council just discussed things that city staff noted and moved ahead with the project. I just remember Angela Hunt arguing for at least some pedestrian amenities that would help ensure the wider road wasn't just a high-speed roadway.

Posted: **16 Nov 2017 14:08**

From articles I've read (nothing official), I think they're essentially just extending the design of that southern portion of Cesar Chavez northward.

Posted: **21 Nov 2017 12:43**

I could've sworn that the original design was changed at one point to have wide sidewalks (not confusing it with Riverfront), but this project is such a disaster that who knows what the final version will look like.

It wouldn't be the first time that a design changes after the official design. Remember that the Sylvan Bridge was finished without bike lanes and almost immediately was re-striped to include them.

Posted: **15 Mar 2018 15:34**

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/downtow ... own-dallas

We finally have an update. Officials are going for an August completion (really??) for the Cesar Chavez part. The Pearl portion hasn't progressed yet due to Carpenter Park work, plus a negotiation with DART about needing to straighten the street by the East Transfer Center. So no word on a completion timeframe for Pearl.

Posted: **21 Mar 2018 13:48**

This project is never consistent. They have people working on it one day and the next few days nobody is on site. I don't understand that. No wonder this project is taking forever! Are they short on labor or something? Anyone have any info as to why the crew is seldom there?

Posted: **17 May 2018 12:29**

I'm not sure when they did it, but the old Cesar Chavez lanes between Pacific and Commerce have been blocked off (to finally work on them, I guess), and now all of that traffic has been moved to the (finally ready) new lanes. *Much* smoother! Now how many coffee/donut breaks will it be till the original lanes are redone?

Posted: **17 May 2018 22:18**

I have noticed the new stoplights are up, are they functioning?

Posted: **18 May 2018 01:32**

As far as the new black mast-arm lights, only the ones facing eastbound Commerce/Pearl are on. All the other mast-arms are dormant, even though they have the blue street signs on them. IMO, they shouldn't have any of the new mast-arms up at all until they are ready to be used.

The temporary span-wire ones facing the current directions of traffic are on, but not the ones facing future directions of traffic (like what will be northbound Pearl/Pacific).

Posted: **22 May 2018 13:38**

Driving by, I've seen them working on this road. Hopefully it's continuous work and not on and off again. This road has taken years to build.

Posted: **22 May 2018 21:26**

It's such a damn mess, at times I can't figure out what they are trying to accomplish. I just hope it turns out good.

Posted: **24 May 2018 20:30**

I guess we have a little history going on right now... the excavation/redo of the previous Cesar Chavez northbound lanes is exposing something probably not seen in many decades. There are rails and wood crossties among the dirt and debris--very likely from when the Houston & Texas Central RR occupied the path where Cesar Chavez Blvd. is now. (I should have gotten some pix, but of course, I didn't)

Posted: **24 May 2018 21:49**

Will they be doing any landscaping along the new streets? That and decent lighting would be awesome for that side of downtown.

Posted: **24 May 2018 22:28**

jrd1964 wrote:I guess we have a little history going on right now... the excavation/redo of the previous Cesar Chavez northbound lanes is exposing something probably not seen in many decades. There are rails and wood crossties among the dirt and debris--very likely from when the Houston & Texas Central RR occupied the path where Cesar Chavez Blvd. is now. (I should have gotten some pix, but of course, I didn't)

Actually, the H&TC crossed the street grid at an angle about a block away, where the Commerce to I-345 ramp is. The tracks on Cesar Chavez (formerly Central Expressway, formerly Preston Street) were for DR&T streetcars and Texas Electric Railway interurbans.

Posted: **24 May 2018 22:52**

Well, I knew it had to be somebody's railway path. Thanks for the update.

Posted: **24 May 2018 22:55**

Tnexster wrote:Will they be doing any landscaping along the new streets? That and decent lighting would be awesome for that side of downtown.

I would guess so, there's enough middle median (similar to what already exists on Cesar Chavez south of Commerce) for plants and lighting. Surely after this long of a wait, they won't do the scorched-earth/moonscape treatment there.

Because nothing has started on Pearl besides a few dormant signal lights, it has yet to be seen what the layout will be, but it would be nice if it were similar to what is south of Commerce on Cesar Chavez.

Posted: **25 Jun 2018 12:52**

What are they doing to the intersection of Elm and Harwood st? It's close to this but I see the sidewalks being expanded but don't know if there's something more to it than just wider sidewalks.

Posted: **25 Jun 2018 13:43**

dd_dweller wrote:What are they doing to the intersection of Elm and Harwood st? It's close to this but I see the sidewalks being expanded but don't know if there's something more to it than just wider sidewalks.

Best I found out is the city is simply continuing the work the Cambria hotel was already doing for their new Valet lane. The city needs that lane to be consciously removed down Elm street and right now we have piecemeal removal so maybe the city had to continue the work past the hotel for safety reasons. Right now Thanksgiving Tower took the lane and the Cambria Hotel did. 1700 Pacific is still holding out on a major renovation project that would do the same. Also if the Drever actually moves ahead I'm sure they are required to do the same.

Keep in mind according to the most recent news story Pearl redo has not been designed yet.

Posted: **11 Mar 2019 14:36**

According to the latest timeline of the project made public by Dallas City Council member Philip Kingston on Friday, workers should have tied up the project's loose ends, like traffic signal work and sidewalk and driveway repair, by Aug. 2, closing the book on a project that was approved for design in 2007 and began construction in March 2012.

"If you're like me, you may also be driven slightly crazy when you realize that this is the last major downtown streets project approved before the adoption of the Complete Streets Design Manual," Kingston wrote on Facebook. "So no pedestrian-serving, multi-modal features; just pavement. And during the ludicrously long construction delay, we've already had two requests to narrow the finished design."

"Look for us to start undoing this project immediately upon completion," Kingston said.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/one ... d-11595945

I honestly don't know how serious they are about re-doing the re-do. I'm guessing if they do go back to work on the road after it is completed, it will just simply be a band-aid type of fix, and not a full on second re-do. As absurd as this seems, I do like that they recognize their mistake and might be taking steps to fix it. I just hope it doesn't take forever and costs are minimal.

Posted: **11 Mar 2019 15:29**

DPatel304 wrote:
According to the latest timeline of the project made public by Dallas City Council member Philip Kingston on Friday, workers should have tied up the project's loose ends, like traffic signal work and sidewalk and driveway repair, by Aug. 2, closing the book on a project that was approved for design in 2007 and began construction in March 2012.

"If you're like me, you may also be driven slightly crazy when you realize that this is the last major downtown streets project approved before the adoption of the Complete Streets Design Manual," Kingston wrote on Facebook. "So no pedestrian-serving, multi-modal features; just pavement. And during the ludicrously long construction delay, we've already had two requests to narrow the finished design."

"Look for us to start undoing this project immediately upon completion," Kingston said.

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/one ... d-11595945

I honestly don't know how serious they are about re-doing the re-do. I'm guessing if they do go back to work on the road after it is completed, it will just simply be a band-aid type of fix, and not a full on second re-do. As absurd as this seems, I do like that they recognize their mistake and might be taking steps to fix it. I just hope it doesn't take forever and costs are minimal.

This cluster..... construction began 6 years ago. I had to drive through this mess daily for my commute until very recently. It was never needed, makes the neighborhood worse, and was an epic waste of money that has taken 7 YEARS to complete. With all the recent fraud and stealing by city leaders who are now on their way to federal prison, I wonder if this can be investigated for wrong doing. Was someone getting money off this for 7 years?

Posted: **15 Mar 2019 11:07**

The redo was needed because it was a tangle of criss-cross roads that needed to be realigned with the standard street grid. The time it's taken is ridiculous though and it was badly thought out and most of all badly implemented. I drive through this area for Uber now and it's improved but until they complete Pearl redo in addition to the work they did on Cesar Chavez its pointless because Pearl is still not a direct roadway like its supposed to become. We know Carpenter Park will gain lots of land because of the redo of these streets so the reason behind the untangling of this area is still a good idea but Angela Hunt was fighting city hall over this project before she left and still could never get them to publicize the detailed plans.

Posted: **15 Mar 2019 12:00**

My biggest complain is the lack sidewalks and the lack of road diet on Chavez. Glad they plan on revisiting this crap.

Posted: **15 Mar 2019 16:17**

TXDOT I am sure was against any road diet because they also have fought city hall on the Live Oak exit removal. When city hall first started talking about removing the Live Oak exit TXDOT was a big proponent and then overnight they changed their support.

Posted: **23 Sep 2019 12:49**

It looks like the lanes have finally opened up. I think they're still working on a few things before everything's completely finished.

Posted: **24 Sep 2019 03:49**

dd_dweller wrote:It looks like the lanes have finally opened up. I think they're still working on a few things before everything's completely finished.

Well, at least for Cesar Chavez, it's about time. The same can't be said for Pearl just yet, though.

Dallas Fort Worth Urban Forum

Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's

Re: Downtown: Cesar Chavez & Pearl re-do's