TheNiche

LOL, I remember that one. I like the version with subtitles.

The WSJ has an article on margaritas that's just out. They interviewed Bobby Heugel of Anvil fame. He reveals to us that, "Margaritas are like burgers."

You can trace courthouse records (try courthousedirect.com) pretty far back to figure out who owned the house, but it may be more difficult to determine who lived there if it might've been leased out.

This would be far better off as a master-planned community. It's only 19 miles to downtown along a new, uncongested, and toll-free freeway. It's surrounded by big regional parks to the south, east, and west, and Fall Creek and Summerwood have already established and proven the market. And it's wholly within Sheldon ISD, which has neither a particularly good or bad reputation because its so sparsely populated. All it would take is this, which could be a project of similar scale with Shadow Creek Ranch, and the ISD's reputation would swing toward positive. (It certainly makes more sense to develop this as residential than for Lennar to bother developing the EarthQuest site as residential, 35 miles out in New Caney.)

It could have a small commercial component, but nothing so ambitious. Few employers have ever been especially interested in northeast Houston, just the same as how Pearland is not a big draw for employers. I don't envision that pattern changing too much.

Now we really need to recruit some more area retail. More bars, an off-campus bookstore with amenities (we lost the College Store, but I'm thinking more like a full-service Barnes and Noble with coffee and lounge area), and late night places to hang out.

In an age where students understand and can use the internet to source their books, how relevant is a B&N? Isn't that just for old people and dullards, like Blockbuster has become?

HAIF must be an agonizing place for someone who doesn't enjoy looking at renderings

I like my renderings plausible. When they're not, I'll point it out.

/pissing.match

I like the rendering because it gives a hint as to what the area could look like one day.

Then I'm sure that there's a Sim City thread somewhere on HAIF. The commercial real estate environment is not a unicorn farm.

I love professionalism. But what is the point of even having a convention center if it can't attract conventions. As someone who loves Houston, you won't hear me complaining (too much) about our corporate look. I'm not suggesting that we turn Houston into Las Vegas, but in the case of attracting business conventions, and out-of-towners, I don't think a little bling, some first-rate amenities or a convenient place to shop would hurt a convention center 'district'. Discovery Green is a great asset already in place to really make this area special. I hope city leaders run with it and utilize it to make this area of downtown as appealing as possible.

I'm not talking about affixing a strip of blinking multi-colored LED lights along the barrel of one's rifle. I'm talking about affixing a strip of blinking lights (or hopefully something much more tasteful) to give a convention center district the best chance it can get to compete with other cities who don't seem to have any problem justifying going the extra mile when it comes to giving visitors something to remember when visiting their city.

I'm sorry, but were you actually intending to respond to me? I'm not saying that I would reject any specific idea for anything that might be built downtown. I'm saying that the rendering (the document and only the document, prepared by someone external ) is sloppy, fictitious, and unrealistic; it presents ideas that aren't actual ideas.

EDIT: And for the record, you need to chill. I'm uninterested in another pissing match with you. Its a waste of time and distracting from...well, reality.

I don't think I ever heard anyone defend mediocrity or blandness so well.

Thank you! That's quite a compliment. Only, you call it blandness and I call it professionalism. That's what I expect from my elected or appointed officials. There is a difference, btw, between not trying hard enough and simply doing it wrong. If I had "aimed high" in my math class by adding one to every solution, then I'd probably not have graduated high school and would've been stuck flipping burgers. Enthusiasm is no substitute for accuracy.

Great plan. Great rendering. How depressing it would be if city leaders didn't aim high. Imagine what you'd end up with if you didn't at least try for the best in the early stages.

One can aim high without affixing a strip of blinking multi-colored LED lights along the barrel of one's rifle. But then, I never really understood that expression. Why should anyone aim high? We should be aiming at what we intend to shoot with proper adjustments for windage and elevation. Aiming high is just a waste of ammunition. It's stupid.

Well, if that's the worst problem it has, then I'd call it a success.

It's not, though. The intent and purpose of the rendering is to demonstrate the long-term expansion plans of government entities, however the rendering depicts structures that are variously barely-credible rumors or that are completely fictitious, which detracts from the rendering's credibility. Worse still, it places facades on the basic shapes of the buildings, which have yet to be designed. Many people are quite gullible and construe renderings as a sort of social contract over and over again, even though they should know better.

Since it should be so obvious that the rendering is bogus, I felt that pointing out the most laughable error was the best way to attack it from a rhetorical standpoint.

So it'd be Houston's version of "Mockingbird Station"??

No. It'd be our version of our city.

In that rendering, long shadows are being cast from north to south. That seems about as credible as what the rendering is depicting.

Will any of these strip centers ever be developed, or are they too expensive to buy and knock down?

Yes, probably. And yes, they are. Be patient.

Now, back to reality, are you really going to argue that non-residents of Houston who work in the city five times a week actually pay more than they take away? Really? How, because they make their bosses pay? Next, are you going to tell me that they contribute more to the city than residents and property owners?

Marksmu's heavy-handed rhetoric makes for easy fodder; I can't blame you for pouncing on it. But think this through. Commuters buy a heck of a lot of food and gas inside of Houston, and most of the regional malls and other destination retail is located within the Houston city limits, so there are a lot of other major expenditures that accrue sales taxes to the City's and METRO's coffers as well...without them having to provide very many services to these individuals, which is a critical difference.

A lot of suburbanites also own businesses inside of the city limits, paying property taxes on both real and personal property, and generating sales tax revenue.

Just as an example from my anecdotal experience, it seems like this is especially true of the Asian investor class, which likes to live in Fort Bend County but conducts the bulk of their business in southwest Houston. I'm sure that if their tax revenue is unwelcome in Houston, it is perfectly welcome in Sugar Land or Stafford. The portion of those cities' sales tax that they allocate to economic development instead of to METRO would undoubtedly be used to snipe businesses such as these away from Houston on the pretense that Houston had become unfriendly and too expensive. And whether the toll was terribly expensive or not, it would be obnoxious. The drainage fee only pisses people off after they've invested in a business and figure out how much it is and how unfavorable the rules are, and even a property tax comes in slightly below your market value followed by your protest that gets it far below your value so that you feel like you're getting a good deal; but a forced toll irredeemably slaps you upside the head every single day. People won't stand for it.

What?! At grade?! Are you sure? It was my undestanding that they wanted a bridge over the UP tracks, and that local residents (NIMBYS) didn't want it. So they negotiated and got METRO to build an underpass. I'm pretty sure they weren't trying to cross tracks at grade, that wouldn't be feasable/possible.

Yes, an at-grade crossing was the original proposal for Harrisburg near 66th Street. They intended that light rail service would simply be interrupted when freight trains passed through the intersection, which was ridiculous. The elevated grade-separation was the second proposal, and the submerged grade-separation was the third and final proposal.

(I can't confirm LTAWACS' comment about the LRT riding on the same tracks as freight trains, although the plan for how to cross the tracks closer to downtown was certainly not made very clear for a very long time. He might be thinking of that section or he might have beeen thinking about the notion that the southeast line might have shared the freight rail's right of way.)

Isn't METRO building the MLK memorial in agreement with the city? I assume the city had something to do with it. It's troublesome that METRO is paying for it, yes. But I'm not outraged because in the grand scheme of things, it isn't much money at all.

That's not my understanding. It got a lot of press, but there was no mention of reimbursement or other participation with the City of Houston. If a gross misallocation of $750,000 doesn't outrage you, I don't know what will. Many people don't make that much money in their lifetime!

And besides, something like this probably indicates that there are similarly wasteful projects that just haven't been reported on previously.

I'm more outraged about the East End line underpass deal, and how the city is picking up the tab for east end residents. I'm upset that it will delay construction.

There's another instance where METRO shot itself in the foot. Do you realize that METRO began construction on the East End line without final and approved engineer's drawings? Since they hadn't bothering to inform Union Pacific that they wanted to cross the UP tracks at-grade, UP had the ability to veto, was caught off-guard, and used it. Construction was delayed by almost two years following ground-breaking. That was just...obviously...stupid. And it was probably the (long-overdue) tipping point where most people lost faith in METRO's capabilities and priorities.

We certainly don't need a better transit system. I believe we already have a somewhat adequate system, and we are improving upon it. But I would like to see an excellent system, why not? We are growing and buidng as a city, why not make responsible infrastructure investments? I agree, but I think giving METRO's full share of the tax back is certainly within our means.

You're welcome to make a donation. I'd rather buy a plane ticket to Dallas than spend money trying to emulate Dallas. And the thing is, I don't even like Dallas. I'd rather just take my money buy a cell phone that holds a better charge, then forget that you ever suggested that I pay more in taxes.

Not really. METRO has had plenty of financial issues, and is struggling to build a mediocre rail system (although they will be able to afford it, but just barely IMO).

METRO's financial issues are largely self-inflicted. They have spent beyond their means and now ask for more money so that they can tackle pressing regional mobility issues like...an MLK memorial. Why aren't you outraged? Why aren't you demanding a restoration of the public confidence from them? More than anything else, that's my beef with METRO. If they want me to trust them, they must prove themselves trustworthy.

The City is only marginally better, but at least I can vote to teach them a lesson.

Most excellent transit systems have much more funding than that. For as big of a city as Houston is, it just isn't enough to comfortably build a good transit system that serves more than a couple hundred thousand people.

Do we need an "excellent" transit system? I advocate an "adequate" transit system, financed transparently and within our means.

I completely agree. What's the point of creating a transit system and then diverting money away from it? The City of Houston needs to create a whole new "General Mobility" tax and use it to improve the poor condition of local streets. Give METRO's whole funds back.

Yeah...ummm...they just did that. Only they call it a drainage fee and it gets paid for in your water bill even though it funds both drainage and street repair. Instead of diverting any income from the general fund to transportation, though, I'm betting that they divert it from transportation to cover unfunded pension obligations...because you know, municipal bankruptcy would be a real drag.

Nice building, but these belong inside the loop. I guess someone forgot to close the gate and all the horses got out?

Yeah, I've said for years that all those office buildings in Dallas belong in Houston. I don't understand how or why people keep building them or why other people keep leasing them up there. It's obviously not about an agglomeration of specialized labor. Perhaps I-45 is to blame? Or perhaps its their proximity to Canada. We could blame Canada. Why not, with their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies...

Given that we haven't seen a single rendering of a highrise and that the press release specifically described low-rise buildings, let's test the credibility of that statement.

10 buildings x 20 stories x 25,000sf floorplates + many more low-rises = 5,000,000 square feet + many more low-rises

Nope. Not credible.

Do we really need more low density industrial office parks?

Beltway 8 is loaded with them already.

Houston19514 beat me to it by about 30 seconds. And besides that, what else could realistically be done with the land around there? Nobody wants to live there, given a choice. And from a policy perspective, it's better to have industrial infill than to maintain a perpetually dormant site that leap-frogged over by development decades ago. Better here than Conroe, am I right?

Yeah, cuz all those warehouses and manufacturing facilities out along McCarty and Beaumont Highway, yeah they support and justify glitzy new shopping centers.

april fools, bitches!

No, that's further south.

Since when is a five-and-a-half-story building a lowrise? Or bad news, for that matter?