uncertaintraveler

Anyone know what the price range is on the Cosmopolitan? I looked at the website, but couldn't find anything. Er....nevermind....I called the office and, of the two floorplans I'm interested, one is sold out and there are only two available of my other favorite--both in the 600K range, with a $600 a monthly fee.

I haven't demonized anyone. I find it discouraging, but not surprising given your track record on this forum, that instead of engaging in an healthy debate on a particular subject, you choose to answer those whose opinions differ from your own with an insult and one-liners. In any event, I'm done with this subject--it appears everyone's position on the issue is already set, including, I suppose, my own. Good luck with the petition, and I mean that in all sincerity.

No, I am reading the posts carefully. The overwhelming responses have not been merely requesting that Weingarten rethink what they want to do, but rather outright hostility towards their plans and possible obstructionism to prevent Weingarten's proposed actions. Trying to spin the responses as being merely "neighborly concern" is weak. And, if I may ask, what is your definition of a "neighbor"? A person who lives adjacent to you? A person who lives a block from you? A person who lives 10 miles away from you? Or is distance irrelevant and what matters is how often they visit your property? Is a person who visits you every week your neighbor? What if they only visit once a year? At what point do you draw the line? Should a property owner have to consult, or even listen to, the wishes and desires of every person in a community, even if their connection to the owner's property is limited and tangential at best? Edited to add: Also, Red, in skimming through another thread entitled "Save the Bungalows," at post #34, you state, "When all is said and done, I don't think it is my right to tell a land owner what to do with his lot." At post #41, in the same thread, you state, "I am not entitled to tell my neighbor what to do with his property, nor may he tell me what to do with mine." You also wrote, at post #41, that "Part of freedom and liberty is accepting the freedom and liberty of your neighbor. I am forced to live with the fact that too many of my neighbors willingly give up the liberties that were handed down to them by our forebears. I will not vote, advocate, or otherwise give away what few liberties I have left in this brainwashed country, even if that means a McMansion is built across the street...which it already has. I apologize if this post sounds political. But, I have to say, trying to save old houses by giving away our property rights sounds little different than giving away our Constitutional rights because the government said it will make me safer. Both sound suspiciously like someone telling me how to live my life..." So, Red, where exactly do you stand on the issue of property rights, and why do the comments you posted in the "Save the Bungalows" thread not apply here???

NMAINGUY, if, as you say, "the vast majority on this forum would never be put in such a hypothetical position," does that mean that those who may be put in such a situation have less rights than those who may be? In other words, you can't say that it is fine to protest one person's use of their property when you know that the same type of protest would probably never happen to you. Also, my understanding is that there is, in fact, talk of a retail element in the proposed condo, either as part of the overall development or in marketing any new condos as being within walking distance of a grocery store and high-end shops. Good grief, you really should read someone's full post before you post. Note the disclaimer I had towards the end of my post, which stated "for the purpose of simplicity, I am not discussing the role that government or prior land-use restrictions play in the development of property. So if you wish to argue my point, please don't bring up the role of goverment, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, or deed restrictions." Deed restrictions aren't at issue here---and, furthermore, if your property is burdened by deed restrictions, then you took your property with notice of such restrictions and have no right to complain of their effect. So either argue my point on its merits or shut-up. KINKAIDALUM, if, as you claim, "It's just foolish to say you can just rebuild the Landmark River Oaks Theater. You simply cannot. It's the last theater of it's kind in Houston. I can sit in a seat that my mother may have sat in when she attended Lamar High in the late 1940s. I can get a sense of history and feel connected to my hometown," then I suppose you dislike relocating "historic" structures? As in, it is not acceptable to you to have open-air museums (like those found all across Europe) where old buildings that some historic value are relocated and preserved? Or do you believe that a certain building should always be in its original location? I think you can just rebuild the theater or, at the very least, simply relocate it. I've said as much many times over here. So if you want to sit in a seat that your mother may have sat in, then just offer to relocate the theater. But, once again, it is becoming clear that people would rather whine and prevent an owner's right to develop their own land than fork out their own money and take a risk in running and managing the place on their own. After all, it is easier to demand someone else do something for you than it is to do it for yourself. And as a final note, I find it intriguing that responses to my original post fail to actually argue the central issue here: should a property owner be allowed to do what they want with their own property. Instead, people prefer to speak about their emotional connection to the property, as if their own personal experiences and connections to a place gives them the right to trump the owner's wishes. So, again, I ask you, do you believe that you should be prevented from developing your own property as you wish simply because someone you don't know claims to have an emotional connection to your land? I suspect everyone here would say no, insofar as the question applies to their own land. So why should the answer be any different when the question applies to someone else's land?

Yes. I grew up in Atlanta. Never once I did say that Wiengarten's potential use of its property is a "good use." So don't use the adjectives I used (which, by the way, modified a property's location and its potential view, and not the actual use of the property) to determine whether I think Weingarten's potential use is a good use or not. And, yeah, it is hypocritical to whine about Houston's sprawl and how condos are built without any retail component, and then when a potential development comes along that addresses those issues, moan about how it is such a bad idea. So, traveller, if 1% of Houstonians setting foot in a building is the height of hypocrisy, what would 2/100ths of 1% (400) be? As you yourself said, the price of these condos would be out of most people's range. The size of the lot suggests no more than 80 to 100 units, 150 at the outside, meaning only a few hundred Houstonians would ever see them. The Theater gets that many at one weekend showing. First, never once did I say that the condos would be "out of most people's range." I said they would probably be out of my price range. For someone who always screams about how people need to get their facts straight, I'm surprised you'd make such an obvious error. Second, you are speculating as to the number of potential units and, as such, no further comment is necessary. Third, you are clearly, and perhaps intentionally, confusing what I am saying is the height of hypocrisy. Being a fan of mowing down every building over 20 years old does not make you unique in Houston. In fact, it would make you the typical developer. However, some of us see the value of history, as well as historic structures. And, no one here has the ability to stop Weingarten. We merely want to point out to them how popular the building is, in order to persuade them to rethink any decision to demolish it. If they find out beforehand how much the building means to so many, they might not make the mistake of demolishing it. In that sense, you really don't get it. Again, I never said I was unique in Houston, nor did I say that I was a fan of "mowing" any building down. It is just like you to put words in people's posts, and then to twist the nonexistent words to make your point. I know doing so is a very effective legal technique, but it is a horrible way to actually make a valid point that can stand on its own merit. In any event, go ahead and protest. If doing so will make you feel better, fine. But when the time comes when you want to do something with your property, do you really want people you don't know signing petitions requesting, or even demanding, that you don't? Clearly, what I'm arguing is an unpopular viewpoint, but I believe it is the correct viewpoint. For private property rights to mean anything, private property must be allowed to be developed as its owner sees fit to do so. Allowing non-owners to dictate, or even "strongly suggest," what someone can do with their property weakens everyone's right to do what they want with their own property. If tearing down the theater bothers people so much because of the memories they have of the place, then, by extension, nothing should ever be torn down because someone will always have a memory of something at someplace. Heck, even crack-houses have memories associated with them. So, that being the case, who gets to decide what gets torn down? If you truly believe in private property rights, then only the property owner does. However, if you believe that individuals and entities should have a say in the development of property owned by another, then you don't really believe in private property rights at all, but rather some sort of collectivism that generally results in economic stagnation (where, because of the myriad of opinions on what should be done with a particular piece of property, nothing is ever done) or development-by-consensus (which results in boring, please-the-masses development). Is that what you all want? Or do you just want a city that is full of only the things that you like and that you believe should exist, regardless of what your fellow citizens, or, more importantly, the actual property owner, wants? Note: for the purpose of simplicity, I am not discussing the role that government or prior land-use restrictions play in the development of property. So if you wish to argue my point, please don't bring up the role of goverment, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, or deed restrictions. You can build a condo wherever you want on your land. I never said you couldn't. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to distort my comments. Likewise, you can build a historic theater wherever you want on your land. If the River Oaks theater means so much to you, then before it is torn down (assuming it will be, of course), why don't you contact Weingarten and work out a deal so that you move the building to your land?

No.

I don't get it? Really? What is it that don't I get? That people would rather hinder development than risk their own money to build their own theater...especially when such a theater could be "a great venue" to see certain types of movies? That the city of Houston should concern itself with, and divert limited resources to, saving one building that very few people truly care about instead of, say, building a rail system, eliminating substandard housing, reducing levels of homelessness, providing world-class infrastructure, etc...any one of which will benefit a far greater segment of the community than the theater ever will? That some patron's "way of life" should trump whatever a landowner, or in this case, a landlord, wishes to do with their own property? Seriously, if it it isn't about the facade of the theater, then build your own theater that shows the same type of movies. And if it is about the facade, then just offer to relocate the theater to somewhere else. I fail to see the problem with either of these options, except, of course, it requires you (not personally, mind you, but "you" as in the people who are complaining here) to actually take some risk. But if this is really all about keeping a building from being constructed or about a dislike for a landowner's potential use of his land, and somehow I think that is what it boils down to, then just get over it....because the ability to do whatever you want with your land, without having to consult your neighbors or patrons, is what makes owning property and living in Houston so great.

After I don my flame-retardant suit.... Personally, I'm all for building a high-rise condo on West Gray. It would have an incredible location, being within walking distance to a supermarket, retail shops, parks, and could possibly have an amazing view, although traffic could be a little rough at times. The only downside, for me, would be that any new condo would probably be out of my price range. As another poster said earlier, are you people distraught because of the potential loss of a theater's facade, or because a few starbucks and an eatery or two are going to be displaced? If it is the former, well, good grief, get over it and just build your own "historic" theater facade somewhere. There is plenty of land in Houston for you to build it... To me, it is the height of hypocrisy to claim that losing the River Oaks theater would be a travesty and to demand the preservation of a place that probably no more than 1% of Houstonians ever set foot in...while, at the same time (but in a different thread, of course), whine about new housing development that doesn't incorporate retail in its plans. I drive by the River Oaks theater at least once a week, and I've never seen a line of people outside waiting to get in...nor have I ever figured out where the movie-goers would park their car if they even wanted to see a movie there. It seems to me it is a theater whose time has passed, and it passed a long time ago. I'll admit that the theater is pretty, but so what? The future development plans could, in the end, be just as pretty, and could represent the perfect marriage of great housing and great retail. Apparently, however, most people here would rather save what appears to be a pretty front and a (from what I read here) a middling interior, just to maintain a "historic landmark" that has no such real historic status to speak of.

Are the Jackson Hill ones really selling or do they just have "sold" signs in front? Or is the developer merely saying that they are selling? I don't really believe that all of the units that have "sold" signs on them are really sold...Its like the guy who owns a business, and it is barely successful, but if he opens up another business, it gives the image of success, and suddenly, he starts making money. So the units may not really be sold, but the developer says they are just so he can make the development look attractive to other buyers....

Ironically, however, most Whole Food shoppers arrive at the store by driving their gigantic SUV's with a disposable-diaper clad baby in tow. I just love their shoppers hypocritical "be green" philosphy....

I assume you are referring to 3333 Allen Parkway? If so, this shouldn't be very surprising---they were asking outrageous prices for units that have absolutely horrible finishes and build-quality....

I looked at Commerce Towers a few months ago...They appeared to be way over-priced and a really poor value. To me, they feel like a cheap hotel that tries to be upscale.

I don't think Northwestern has "traditionally" been able to compete with other schools in its conference. They have had a few good years and lots of poor ones. And didn't BC almost cut its football program??? However, I do agree that college football needs to go to a playoff system. I always laugh when ABC commentators lament the dominance the BCS system has on college football and suggest a playoff system would be better---of course, never mentioning that ABC is one of, if not the, biggest reasons the BCS exists!

This sort of deal has been going around for years. Why else do you think schools like Louisiana-Lafayette and the like play Texas? They do it (i) for the money, (ii) because Texas et al type schools need other "gimme" schools they can practice on early in the season, and (iii) if the "weak" schools can pull off an upset, or close to it, doing so instantly increases their profile for the year. Cases in point: University of Central Florida and Fresno State. They became "semi-famous" football schools by taking on the big guys and giving them a run for their money, no pun intended. Also, at virtually every big school that has a football program, football is what keeps the school's entire athletic program profitable. For athletic programs to be successful financially, the key is to always have a profitable football program.

As an aside, I think Rice and other "elite" schools would be better off if they left their current NCAA conferences and formed their own. Schools like Baylor, Vanderbilt, et al, just can't compete with the likes of OU, Texas, Tennessee, Auburn, etc. If the "academically-gifted athletic schools" would create their own conference (consisting of, say, SMU, Vanderbilt, Baylor, Rice, Tulane, et al), the games would probably be pretty competitive. Then again, now that I think about it, I'm not sure there are even 8 qualified Division I schools out there that could justify creating a new conference! I mean, what other "smart" D-I schools located in the SE quadrant of the US have a football team?

Good grief....read the thread before you post! Post #5 answers your question.

How can they offer gas cooktops in the kitchen? Every condo I've looked at has electric cooktops and when I ask way, I'm always told that gas cooktops aren't allowed in multistory developments under the code requirements.

KJB434: So which one is it? First you say "The housing bubble (if it exists) shows no sign of bursting." Then you write: Sounds like you are trying to be on both sides of the, ahem, curve here... And, if I may ask, exactly how does one diversify in regard to their personal home? Have two homes in two different locales? Regardless, even if Houston's market isn't as hot or overvalued as that in other cities, when the housing market begins to falter (here and/or elsewhere), our market will feel the effect from other markets' collapse, and ultimately, prices overall in all markets will begin to fall. After all, no market exists in geographic isolation...

Even if this project is cheap relative to other projects around the country (a premise I don't totally agree with), that hardly means this project is a good value or investment. The market for high end condos is a limited one in all but a very few U.S. markets---Miami, NYC, Vegas, possibly Atlanta, and so on. Clearly, Houston isn't like any of these cities. In any event, I'm waiting for the housing bubble to burst....maybe once that happens prices will return to reasonable levels.

Two points: First, I guess it is safe to assume that 2727 Kirby is the same as the building discussed on another thread titled "new condo on Kirby?" or something along those lines? Second, I would imagine that $400 a square foot condos constitute a pretty slim market. How can anyone buy such a place with a realistic view of earning substantial appreciation upon resale? Or...more importantly...how can people buy these places thinking there will even be a market for them upon resale???

Where is this going to be built? Are units currently being offered for sale? If so, for how much?

Oh dear...no, "very expensive" does NOT mean "very good design." It usually means tasteless, tacky, and very nuveau riche. Those with new money never know how to properly use it.

Anyone have any insight as to the pro's and con's of buying a condo conversion? I have noticed several are going in---2400 McCue, Reata at River Oaks, etc. 7575 Kirby could technically be considered a condo conversion, I suppose, as well. I assume a potential negative to buying a condo conversion is that you are living in an older apartment that probably doesn't have good soundproofing and/or was never built to be a condo in the first place. Any other negatives a potential buyer should be aware of? Thanks.

Holy smokes. I'm shocked at the $500 per sf mark....if people will pay that, good for the developer I guess, but I find that cost to be just amazing.

Which one is the Texaco building? Is that the same as the Heritage building--the one that is intended to look like an aztec/mayan temple?