H-Town Man

SpaceCity, My group didn't kill people. The Aggie community did not kill those twelve kids. A freak accident did. Sure, there may have been errors of human judgment leading to that accident, as there are in any time and place, but that's not the same as accusing my "group" of killing people. I can't believe what you are saying.

What on earth are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with David Koresh? Are you calling us a cult because we pray to God when we remember our dead? Does that make us the equivalent of David Koresh? Is this how you see people who have religious faith?

People who are outside of a group always hate the ones in the group for their togetherness. This is why they make fun of the Aggie Spirit - because they have nothing similar to it in their lives. The sad thing is that A&M welcomes everyone into the family, and remembers them all when they are gone, so those who hate it are the miserable ones who exclude themselves. You saw this thing in school when you were growing up. The loner always hated the large, happy groups of friends. It's the same reason why that boy in Jonesboro, AR fired a gun at all those kids who were holding hands praying. People hate people who care for one another, and they hate it most of all when God is involved, as He was today at the ceremony, and on every plaque of the memorial.

How is building a safe bonfire disrespectful to the dead? If I don't respect the dead, why was at their memorial today? What on earth was I doing walking around, reading all of their bronze plaques and thinking about their loss? What were you doing today?

I agree that Bonfire should be designed by an engineer - and I believe that it was. But does everyone involved in building it have to be an engineer, as some people have suggested? Was everyone involved in the construction of any office building an engineer? As long as you have a good design, can't regular students do the gruntwork? Again, it is very easy to point out problems after an accident has happened. But it worked dozens of times before, and the people currently working on the 45 foot Unity Bonfire off-campus are proving that it can be done again, in a very safe fashion. The Big Dig project in Boston cost $14.6 billion, and now has 700 leaks in a single mile-long section of tunnel. It was designed by engineers, but apparently mistakes were made. With Bonfire, one stack in 90 years fell. Accidents happen.

The fact that tens of thousands of people will be travelling from all over to attend the service in College Station today, for twelve people that most of them never met, is testament that the Aggie Spirit is in fact a very real and very meaningful thing, contrary to the laughs and deprecations of envious, insecure (or why else would they waste time making fun of us?) types who are not a part of it. Most of us have attended college, but unless your college happens to be Texas A&M University, or maybe one of the military academies, it could never show such commitment as this.

Noone was drunk. Are you saying this from the experience of having been there, or are you just sitting in Houston making guesses from your own prejudices? It is very easy to beat up on and make fun of something when an accident has happened. There is always a group of scavenging cowards who never said anything about it before, but after the accident, when it is an easy target, they swoop down and take advantage of it. Accidents happen all the time, and people get killed, but when it is something that is unique, and that people do not understand, they blame the whole thing rather than just conceding that it was an accident. A few years ago in Chicago a scaffolding fell from the John Hancock Center where people were washing windows, landing on a car and killing the people in the car as well as the people on the scaffolding. Did people call for an end to window washing, or say that the people on the scaffolding were drunk and stupid? No, they called it a freak accident, which it was. Bonfire was built at least fifty times to the same height or much higher than the one that fell. Every time it was an incredible feat. Now it is being built again, off-campus, with an improved design, and it is still an incredible feat. At bottom, I think people are jealous that we are a part of this great, mystical thing that they don't have in their lives.

Anyone who presumes to attack the A&M bonfire and what it stood for needs to ask himself two questions: 1. Do I know anything about what I am talking about? Have I ever participated in the building of a bonfire? Have I ever even been to a bonfire? Do I know what student life is like at A&M, or am I just going on stereotype and ignorance? Do I know about the history and what it means? If not, then I should shut my mouth because I don't know what I'm talking about. 2. Have I ever participated in something meaningful or sacred? Are there traditions that I am a part of, that bond me to other people, living or dead? Is there anything in my life that I can point to and say, "this has a deeper meaning than it does on the surface"? Or am I just a whining postmodern brat raised on video games and MTV, who's never hiked in the woods, swung an ax, or built a fire, living in a godless, sterile, commercialized culture with no meaningful connection with those who have left or even those around me?

This one's only $30 million. That's probably out of disappearing range.

Parking Spaces! Parking Islands! I never thought about that! Houston can always replace its most defining piece of architecture. What it really needs, though, are parking spaces and parking islands. Tear 'er down!

But who is going to use a park that is surrounded by parking lots and a big, inhuman convention center? Who's going to walk over there and play chess? And who's going to build a residential tower on the ugly side of downtown just because there's a park at the bottom that nobody uses?

Homeless people are there because nobody else is. Ask somebody who used to go shopping on Main St. in the 60's whether they were panhandled 498 times. The answer will be, "No." People thought Enron Field wouldn't be successful because that was where all the homeless camped out. But when it was built, they just quietly left and went somewhere else. It's like crime. If a street is deserted, there's a good chance of getting robbed. But if a street is thronged with people, the chances are much less.

Sorry, but the idea that learning from the advantages of other cities is "trying to be like somebody else" is just bizarre. It's the kind of idea you'd expect to hear from someone who is funded by the power interests who want things to be the way they've been. I'm not calling for complete change, of course, but if I take a trip to Chicago and say, "Wow, how nice it is to travel down highways that don't have billboards" and then come home and say "We should get rid of some of these billboards in Houston," am I trying to be like Chicago? Or if I enjoy the public parks they have in every neighborhood, and the fact that if someone wants to, they can choose to live in a pedestrian friendly environment, am I trying to be like Chicago if I think we should have pedestrian friendly environments in Houston? Of course not! This is the way cities grow and develop. They don't turn their heads in and say "I will only do something that I thought of myself." And if you don't believe me, do you think that places like the Heights and Hermann Park were homegrown creations? Or modern skyscrapers - were those invented in Houston? Or the pan-Mediterranean architecture of Rice University? No. Those things were all created elsewhere, and brought here by people who wanted Houston to have the best of what other places have. Just like all the fantastic planning of Chicago and Washington D.C. was based on Paris. If we refused to change or adopt any idea that wasn't our own, we'd reach a dead end. But even if you don't agree with me on any of this, the fact of the matter is that there are people here who want to live in an urban environment, who want to have good mass transit, who want more parks and who want a great downtown, so to say that it's not a "Houston" thing is really kind of ridiculous - if people in Houston want it, then it's a Houston thing.

Did anyone else read this? Honestly, I don't see why the Chronicle prints this stuff. I guess they're just trying to get an alternative voice. But really, how common is it for a "lecturer and writer on economic trends," when talking about paradigms for a city's future, to refer to another view by saying, "To hell with that crap"? I can't imagine what Nancy was thinking as she listened to this. Moneymakers: Joel Kotkin Houston needs to look in the mirror Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Since the start of the millennium, Houston and other cities have been pumping millions of dollars into revitalizing their downtowns. ADVERTISEMENT The urbanists fueling much of this effort say folks will move into city centers as long as there are urban amenities to support them. Joel Kotkin thinks that's a lot of hype. Kotkin, a lecturer and writer on economic, political and social trends, believes the suburbs are where the action is and that a healthy urban core is only a small fraction of what makes a city thrive. Kotkin is also an Irvine Fellow at the Los Angeles-based New America Foundation, a nonprofit public policy institute. His latest book, The City: A Global History, will be released early next year. While he was in town this week lecturing to real estate groups, he shared his views on Houston's future with reporter Nancy Sarnoff. Q: When discussing quality of life in Houston, words like heat, mosquitoes and traffic seem to permeate the conversation. How do we overcome this negative perception? A: What is quality of life? Is it to most people what they can do in their neighborhood or back yard? Or is it having some magnificent edifice in the center of the city where they can go, "Oh my God, isn't that spectacular?" Is the quality of life in Houston really bad? There are some things you can't do anything about. The climate is what it is. It's not like you don't pay attention to quality of life, but is quality of life defined by pouring billions of dollars into downtown so a bunch of yuppies can make believe they're in Manhattan? Or is quality of life about hundreds of thousands and millions of people getting a house and having a decent quality of life and in many cases, for the immigrants, a quality of life that was unimaginable to their parents. Isn't that what America is about, or not? Q: Some $300 million was spent on a 7.5-mile light rail system that runs from downtown to the Astrodome complex. Supporters said the train would help bring the city into the 21st century. Do you agree with that theory? A: I think you are a 21st-century city. The cities that are built on transit are 20th-century cities. It's a good thing to have, but does a business move to Houston because it has a transit system? I hate to tell you your traffic's not that bad compared to a lot of cities. It is a good thing to have. It's part of your infrastructure, like your airport and your port. But this idea that, "Oh, we'll be a world-class city." This endless

Houston Retail, didn't you once say that you were trying to persuade the landowner to put something else at the Main/Alabama location? As far as I can tell, a medical building at this location is bad news for hopes of an exciting urban neighborhood. Does anybody know anything about progress on the Days Inn conversion to a veterans' rehab shelter? And since it seems to loosely fit in with what we're discussing, how about Metro's plans to put a mixed-use development at the Main/Wheeler stop?

What all are they doing to it? And where are they going to put a skating rink?

No, because they haven't won a World Series. The curse dates back to the 1920's; they've been in at least four World Series since then. The most famous episode of the curse was a lazy ground ball rolling through Bill Buckner's legs in '86 to prevent what should have been an easy out to win the Series.

I hope they acquire those parking lots and make this thing a full rectangle, as opposed to just going with the curvy shape. I doubt there's much you can build on those little pieces at the corners. I wonder what the history is behind this thing anyway. Were those curves always there, or is it something they did when the convention center was built? Is that when they put the existing field there? Why did they just make a field and not do anything with it? Not to sound negative, but I would not want to be the architect who has to come up with a park for the east side of downtown. The area seems to almost defy any sense of place. As for the convention center... you might as well try to create an urban park next to a Sam's Club. I think the best bet would be to do a Millennium Park thing and just cram a bunch of stuff in it. Make people forget that they're on the east side of downtown.

What's going on right now is incredible. There has been nothing like it in Houston sports history. They were saying on the sports radio shows this morning that as fans came out of Minute Maid Park, they were just yelling on the sidewalks, running out into the streets yelling, making noise for the pure sake of making noise. Marc Vandermeer, who has the 9-11 show on 610, said that he now understands why fans overturn cars after big victories - because he felt exactly like overturning a car. It was also pointed out that a whole generation of Astros fans are being built right now. This could have big long-term implications for the city, about our sense of civic spirit and pride, the way we think of ourselves as a whole and identify with Houston. It may sound farfetched, but I wouldn't doubt that it could even carry over into architecture and public works issues.

No you are not. I was in town over the weekend, and the new building in my opinion looks fantastic. It puts a whole new face on downtown to the East, which had previously been neglected, and seems to tie in Minute Maid with all the other historic buildings. Plus the glass has a really classy tint, much better than in the renderings. It's not cutting edge, avant-garde architecture, but I honestly think it will do more for downtown than the last couple of skyscrapers we've built. In my opinion, this is the sleeper project of the year. Two thumbs up.

I don't know how they're going to do some of this without zoning. The land is priced so high that it will only allow expensive highrises, and without any kind of regulations, the highrises are likely to be isolated and car-oriented. Moving I-45 is a great plan, although the Hobby Center will be a horrible eyesore once that's done (not to mention the back of Bayou Place). The McKinney ramp could be rebuilt as a graceful, all-steel design arching over the Bayou. The Bayou could be turned into a very nice green corridor through here. I hope they espouse the Bayou Master Plan and focus seriously on removing those buildings and sloping the banks up to Commerce St. This could make that whole northeast section of downtown an attractive area.

The old professional building will be converted to hold beds. This is amazing... a building was announced... and now it is being built. Someone says they're going to do something... and they do it. Some of our downtown condo developers could take a lesson from this.

That courthouse in Austin looks absolutely soulless and inhumane. Seriously, they could use that exact picture for the cover of a Kafka novel. When did America start wanting to be like Europe?

I have mixed feelings about the new Chem-E building. It's rather austere, and doesn't mesh well with the other engineering buildings. I too saw that they are planning to tear down the Pavilion. Don't know why. Most of the teardowns I approve of, provided they replace those buildings with something decent. The Student Counselling Center is another building I would hate to see go. The choices they made for the list are interesting. One building that is conspicuously absent is the original Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, with its classical front and stair. The Military Sciences Building ("Honor... The Guiding Star") also seems deserving. Why Bolton, and not Leggett or Milner? Why Hart, and not Walton? Does anyone know the story of some of the buildings they've torn down in the past? You notice that half of the buildings on the Military Walk are gone. Some of those were pretty amazing, although thankfully the best (YMCA) was saved.

Texas A&M has announced a new campus master plan over the summer. The plan will guide campus development over the next fifty years. It essentially condemns most of the building practices of the last forty years, during the school's "crisis period of growth," calling them sprawling and non-contributive towards the traditional campus. The buildings that A&M students love and cherish, the "campus of memory," is said to be found among the older, more urban-style buildings. Future development will be a return to this urban style. The plan calls for new quads, defining of new spaces (and redefining of the old, like O.R. Simpson drill field), removal of parking to the perimeter of campus, and a major increase of density in the historical parts of campus. There are also recommendations on how to improve the quality of architecture; and a landscape plan, which includes turning major arteries such as Wellborn and University Dr. into tree-lined boulevards and preserving natural areas such as the White Creek Greenway. The plan is exciting, as anyone who looks at some of the drawings will attest. It has already won awards from the Boston Society of Architects and a similar Austin-based society, which says that this is the first time they have given their award to a plan instead of a building. It contains interesting discussions of the history and values involved in campus planning, including references to the principles of the French Ecole des Beaux Arts. Anyone interested in the architectural future of one of the nation's five largest universities would enjoy skimming through. www.tamu.edu/campusplan As I looked up this link, I noticed that just yesterday the University President dedicated 16 historic campus buildings as "worthy of preservation," citing them as evoking the values and traditions of the school. Also, a new building in the planning stages, the landmark $100 million Life Sciences Center, is to "rigorously adhere" to the principles set forth in the campus plan. It looks like the school is excitedly adopting this vision.