Porchman

I thought the same thing, however the Pru site already was slated for an outpatient center. Unless plans have changed, that would raise the question where on the "main campus" they would build such a build such a large facility.

The IPCT exists. According to The Chron, it will fund both research and a 600 square foot building on the main campus.

It appears you're correct. The HBJ is also reporting the W 27 location, as well. I thought maybe they'd be replacing the tax guy with meat.

HBJ is reporting that this is slated to open in January. However, it appears that there is a change in the location. http://www.revivalmeats.com/about/contact.html

I was a bit confused by that, too. First, note that they have apparently tunneled a trail under MacGregor at that same location to take people into Hermann Park. Then I looked at the greater scheme of the trails in the area. The trail on the west/nortth bank is not fully contiguous east of 288. Not only is the east/south bank trail contiguous all the way to MLK just south of UH, it also intersects the Columbia Tap Rail Trail coming out of 3rd Ward/Eastwood. So, to go by trail from Eastwood or UH to Hermann Park, this bridge would be an important link because people would otherwise have to cross around 288 or near the TMC. I have not walked/run/biked any of these trails, but that's my theory.

Location...

Sources: Top developer ponders new Galleria-area tower From Nancy Sarnoff at the Chron: I speculate that the property for which the hotel was slated (the west side of the new segment of South Post Oak Lane) would be in play for this.

Prairie Home Companion is live from the Wortham tonight. The show will be rebroadcast tomorrow afternoon. They had a lot of local references (mostly inner loop) in the opening bits including a painful cover of California Girls ("Houston Girls"). Otherwise, Houston coverage has been a references to our cowboy culture. DBigTex. were you looking for a Houston stereotype? EDIT: The mezzo-soprano, Susan Graham, was great. The rest of the show seemed phoned in.

Agreed. The design is that of a park-like bridge like the number of bridges on the lower trails around it. The subtle ramps and curves are complement to the bayou. It's peaceful. There was a fight to keep Buffalo Bayou natural. This bridge pays homage to those who fought to preserve it in its natural state.

The Duncan Family Wing is at HMNS. I would venture a guess this new MFAH wing might carry the Glassell name since an enormous share of Alfred Glassel Jr's estate - about $200 million, I believe - went to the MFAH. I don't know what the "playing ball" issue is either. The CAM is committed to be a non-collecting entity. Housing the MFAH's collection might have felt like an infringement on their mission and their independence.

An article about Architect Ronnie Self's 3rd Ward house in the NYT Magazine today. Link.

Yes. Then some other things were poposed, but nothing materialized Texaco Building leads CBD hotel surge From Ritz to rentals: Group could turn Texaco building into apartments

Profile piece on Mayor Parker in Business Week. http://www.businessw...98096799595.htm

Soon. They expect to initiate the 2012-13 school year there.

2nd Public Meeting Regarding Koehler Street Development Mayor Annise Parker Cordially invites you to attend A 2nd public meeting regarding the Koehler Street Development Wednesday, September 1, 2010 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. High School for Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice [There are students to manage you if you get you of hand. This is no United Way] 4701 Dickson Street Auditorium Houston, TX 77007 You are cordially invited to attend a 2nd public meeting [no teacakes promised] regarding Kohler Street Development, also referred to as the possible Walmart project. I want to provide residents another opportunity to ask questions and voice concerns about traffic, drainage, noise, crime and lighting issues. This meeting will focus solely on areas of the development that are under the city´s control. Only city representatives will be present. [shirt color optional].

Much better. The greeters would be more to scale.

This design sucks! They need to be more sensitive to the Heights. They should emulate the McTorians that exist throughout the Heights, and, from an environmentally sensitive standpoint, they need to make a smaller footprint. WalMart should develop a two-story, antebellum-styled, double-porch edifice: A 150,000 square foot Tara. It could be complemented with magnolia-styled parking lot lights and grassy-looking asphalt. Better yet, a Sanders-driven KFC could take one of the pad sites, and put up a giant inflatable of the Colonel to wander the front of the grounds to say, "Howdy". They also need to rename this Walmart. Call it "Rollback Manor". Clearly, this development does not gratify the gentrification of the Heights. How skewed are these developers?

Nicely put, Red. The memorials are an honor to those who have passed. They are a comfort to those who remember them. They are honered in large ways as you noted above, in burial places, and with white crosses where they met sudden death. There was a proposal to recognize the Death of Ghandi, too. Last year, some folks were pushing to rename Hillcroft "Mahatma Gandhi Avenue".

Sev, thank you for posting this. Annise Parker listed the same bullets in The Leader. (and they reprinted these bullets point-for-point). However, the ordinance, as written, is open to draconian interpretation. At the very minimum, there needs to be a press from the preservationists to make the City define "conforming". This one issue, I think, would address many fears. If this issue is not addressed, the objective, as I infer it, will fail. Here we are...a City without zoning, This ordinance has all the good feel of a toddler attempting to walk in Daddy's Birkenstock's. I and others view that with its inherent awkwardness. The Mayor needs to get clear about what is enforced under this ordinance. To simplify.. 67% of a neighborhood can agree to be part of a districtThey will agree to certain restrictionsWhat are those restrictions....by ordinance, not by HAHC's discretion? Can anybody answer that, specifically? As an example of where this proposed law stands, why does this ordinance need digest in hearings in multiple neighborhoods? Is the neighborhood concept of Hawthorne the same as West Heights? Who gets to decide that?

An excerpt of comments on the HBJ.... Let's hope we do not equate this sense of "progress" with a sense of "normal'.

SC, I did miss your point on this post, partially because it seems incongruent with your “everything inside the loop” and “everything inside the Beltway” rants. I don’t think it’s an issue of classism, tough. It’s largely a matter of where residents have been more active. As far as the house is concerned, it’s not bad…for Memorial. In that, it may constructively define the issue of “compatibility”, and what the ordinance may be seeking to address. Where I believe the draft ordinance fails is its lack of setting forth that definition.

From Rice's Glasscock School.. "Misinformation", no. Misinterpretation, yes. This discussion is lacking "ears" and discernment. That's not productive.

Thanks, sev. However, what might help further dispel misconceptions is to state what is being sought in the ordinance. What is the vision? Because the way this reads (and, BTW, the draft does leave a great deal to interpretation), it's a lot about restriction of individual homeowners. The reason I'm concerned is that the sense of such restrictions is going to undo and undermine the greater good. On this thread, we're hearing about recission of the petitions which create historic districts in the first place. I think most people here in the Heights have a sense of the neighborhood they want. They may personally engage in that neighborhood in different fashion. They might beautifully preserve a bungalow. They might enjoy cocktails on the porch of their new Tricon. However, I don't think the vision of the neighborhood is really not that different for people. One other issues that muddies the ordinance is it also addresses landmark status. I think that creates some of the misconception on the ordinance, itself. It also potentially waters down the ordination of landmarks. There has been a lack of clarity in presenting this and agility in responding to concerns. I hope GHPA and other groups dedicated to preservation can develop that common vision of what is being sought. People buy into vision not restriction. It's HAHC which would make decisions about such things. GHPA is an independent preservation group. They advocate in a balanced manner unlike AWBA (Angry White Boys of America).

He's not. He and I are the bastard children of the Heights. And we get to act out here. If the ordinance passes, our property values will increase because people will be able to modify their property the way they want. Block people from building homes that look like Jiffy Lubes. However do not tell people that they cannot modify the crown molding above their door, that they cannot use Hardiplank, that they cannot modify the color of their house, or that they cannot replace the windows on their porch with French doors. This ordinance feels like an over-reach. As others have suggested ,it could do more harm than good. The perspective I would seek is preserve the front-porch aspect of the neighborhood, not the specifics individual buildings.