JJxvi

We don't live in a small town. We all have chosen to live right smack dab in the middle of the 4th largest city in the nation. The more possible options there are to shop close by for varied items at varied locations, the happier I am. People act like we're in small town east texas and Wal*Mart is going to come in and put all our friends and family out of business and force us all to work there. As far as, traffic goes, I find it hard to imagine a better place for this center (so long as the access to both directions on I-10 are improved, which will happen). In the Heights, people being concerned about Heights Blvd is pointless. Heights Blvd, by its very nature serves only us, it doesnt go anywhere, or do any other job besides run from our neighborhood to I-10. If anything, its utility will be improved because it will be possible in the future to actually get on Heights and head south, and then actually go West from the neighborhood rather than trudging down the hideous snarl of Washington Ave, or going 11th to get through the Shepherd/Durham intersections, or to have to actually drive down neighborhood residential cross streets to get to Studewood or Durham. The same thing applies to Yale, IMO even though it is a through street, it will become more convenient for us after the development is done. There is an argument that it will cause more traffic from the north, but having lived and driven in this area all my life, I doubt very many people will drive down Yale to get to this center except us neighborhood residents. I-45 will be a much more convenient option for the majority of people coming from the North, while those further west in areas like Oak Forest/Garden Oaks will use Durham/Shepherd and I-10. The vast majority of any traffic from the North of this thing is going to use the interstate(s) to get there or maybe Shepherd which is already a major high traffic corridor with 4 lanes each way for that purpose. If there are any traffic issues they have nothing to do with the Heights and everything to do with the routes from the South to this thing from Waugh and the narrower more urban sections of Shepherd and the horrible access that Washington Ave already provides East/West. The only major danger to creating a traffic snarl at Yale/Heights for us is probably, well, US. The fact that there will now actually be a Heights/Yale exit wehen traveling East on I-10 is likely to make those two options more viable for neighborhood residents to use to get home rather than every single person in the Heights exiting Studewood and Shepherd. Probably will increase traffic on Yale/Heights at rush hour, more than WalMart shoppers ever would, but also probably will aleviate some issues at other areas. In any case, I'm pretty sure those access roads are going in no matter who the anchor store in this development is, and if memory serves, the smallish resistance to those roads failed a long while back.

I guess the only conclusion I can draw about myself is that I'm either a liar, or don't live where I think I live.

The fact is that there are a very large numbers of structures dotting the heights that shouldn't and probably can't be saved, even in the historic districts, and I would consider your example of the south end of Nicholson to be one of the prime locations where an argument could be made that maybe somebody SHOULD have cleared off every block and built something new. In any case, I don't feel extremely strongly one way or another, especially not living in (but just outside) the West district. I just wanted to make my feelings clear that I personally don't think the character of the neighborhood is being affected by new development much at all except to say that its gotten much better. In fact I believe the quality of many, many of the older homes has gone way up since I was growing up with the influx of new development. To me the neighborhood is enhanced and vibrant with restored old structures mixed with new structures, but thats just my opinion, as I'm sure others have theirs and I don't oppose the oldest and most uniform blocks having some kind of protection just to keep some of the old flavor around. The only time I really bristle (and this hasn't happened in a while) is when someone who bought and renovated a nice old bungalow within the last year or two tries to convince me that the neighborhood needs to be preserved and kept historic, and have uniform building codes instituted, and I'm thinking "I've lived and or worked right around here off and on for 25 years or so and this neighborhood has NEVER been uniform so what are you telling me is supposed to be preserved?"

That's because the defining "character" of the Heights is a hodge podge of building styles, and even types over about 100 years. The closest person to me who sticks anti-new construction, and "Say Yes" and whatever other new sign is out in their front yard lives in a grocery store (although I dont believe neither they, nor I, actually live in one of the affected historic districts. The neighborhood has changed a lot since I was a kid, mainly due to the influx of money into the neighborhood. Thats the only change I see, the neighborhood is richer, not better, nor worse. Its still a hodgepodge of commercial, even industrial, mixed with old houses, even apartment complexes in the middle of neighbiorhood blocks, only now theres new homes and townhomes added to the mix. I live across the street from a large commercial building that has been transformed into lofts, its been there since I was a kid. The family business is two houses don and has been there for 30 years. The house next door to me is a big new home (2 on what was once one lot), where previously there was a 950 SF shack that appeared ready to fall at any moment. There's an apartment complex 2 blocks away, theres the people that live in the grocery store. There's new buildings sure, but most of the places are 20-30-50-80 years old. Anybody that moved into the Heights in the past 80 years moved into a hodge podge that has been constantly evolving and been added onto with very little directed development or thought to an overarching character. The "historic district" types want to change the nature of my hood, IMO, not preserve it.

That looks like it would be a sweet college campus.

Even if the city told AEG and the Dyanmo, "You know what, screw it, we will build your entire stadium for you howver you like it, whereever you want it, you dont have to pay a penny" it would be cheaper than turning the dome unto a soccer stadium. The dome needs hundreds of millions of dollars. Even then the Dynamo can't play in the dome. Its a nightmare financially. Running an 70,000 seat stadium is not cheap. You need an army of security guards, janitors, concessions, ushers, and parking attendants, not to mention paying the electrical bills from the lighting necessary even in the day time, and the astronomical costs of running the A/C in the place. It costs roughly $400,000 a day to have an event in a venue that size like Reliant, probably even more in one like the dome built in the 60's.

Poor Bill White. I feel sorry for him and all the "pressure" being put on him.

(4) Metro and the City of Houston are separate organizations with imperfectly aligned goals who are able to operate somewhat independently of each other and quite capable of stepping on one anothers toes leaving the other to change some plans.

The new stadium will certainly make the Houston Dynamo more financially viable not less. Teams that play in 50,000 plus seat stadiums in MLS are the leagues big money losers. Teams that play in 20-30,000 seat stadiums that they control are turning profits, and that includes a couple who, like the Dynamo will have to do, had to almost completely finance construction on their own.

Its not in AEG's best interest to put any money into the dome. Its not a a venue that can be intimate enough or cheap enough for either soccer or the primary business (concert promotions). They can easily pay for a game in a 22,000 seat stadium, thats extremely cheap. High schools can afford putting on events in stadiums of similar size. The venues at Reliant Park are a completely different matter. Just because you put on a smaller event at the dome, doesnt really cut down a lot on the number of security, operations, parking, etc people that you need on game day. Then youve got the costs of just turning the building on. The lights and air conditioning, the place is huge, its completely inadequate from a cost standpoint for an organization like the Dynamo.

Renovating the Astrodome to be suitable for soccer is going to cost a lot more than paying for some land and infrastructure improvement. It would require a wider field, a new playing surface, and a general upgrade of an entire facility that has been essentially going to seed and poorly maintained for almost a decade now. It cost what, $100 million plus to renovate it in 1980's dollars the last time??? Granted that was adding structure and seats and so a lot more intensive, but thats already probably double the cost of financing this entire stadium, and many, many times more expensive than land and infrastructure improvements. As far as handing it off to AEG, AEG would say no thanks. They cant pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars per gameday ramp up that a stadium of that size costs to staff and run.

Reading comments, it baffles me how people think renovating the Astrodome for soccer is a good idea.

I'd like to vote for "Yankees Suck Square" if they do indeed change the name of Regent's Square...

How do you feel about, say a big company wanting to build a big distribution center in the area that will add X number of jobs, adding X number of dollars to the economy, and X dollars of extra property tax value, but they need the city to improve access, add stop lights, improve the utility infranstructure, or else they will have to build elsewhere outside the city?

I have no reason to think this info is absolutely reliable, but the rumor I heard was not the Astros lot, but another chunk of land in the East Downtown TIRZ.

I also have heard these rumblings.

Renovating the Dome would probably cost much, much more than building a simple soccer specific stadium would. A huge stadium like the dome also costs money to ramp up for an event, so the team probably wouldnt make money on it with an MLS sized gate.

The LA Galaxy is already a more valuable franchise than all but about 10 NHL teams, and probably right at the value of a couple MLB and NBA teams. Red Bull bought the MetroStars for about $100 million a few years ago, which was already knocking on the door of the lower tier hockey franchise values.

Pachuca are not really the South American champs. Pachuca are the reigning Copa Sudamericana champions which is like the UEFA cup winner in Europe (as opposed to the Champions league). It is a continental championship, but is not the true continental club championship. Boca Juniors are the current Copa Libertadores holders and thus South American Champions. In Europe Sevilla won the EUFA Cup but are not European Champions (AC Milan won the Champions League)

Chronicle Article

2nd Ward starts at the railroad tracks East of the site. Lot C, MMP, 59 etc, are all outside the western edge of the 2nd ward.

288 @ Reed Rd

It also does not follow that if you got rid of the prime and most high tech advertising spots, that the company's advertising budget would stay the same...

How exactly did you make this leap? What I'm saying is that if you go around saying, give us money to improve all of Houston's parks (or as I have seen, give us money to help fund scholarships and programs) you dont raise nearly as much money as you do when you go in and say, give us money we have a goal for a beautiful new $70 million park and here are conceptual drawaing (or give us money to help fund a new 40,000 SF wing for the business school building, that will contain, X, Y, and Z). Im saying that if you dont spend $70 million on Discovery Green or whatever, it DOES NOT folow that you would have that same $70 million to spend somewhere else.