Jump to content

METRORail Green Line


Guest danax

Recommended Posts

I am so confused with the aperture, shutter speed and ISO. They all deal with light but I'm having a hard time differentiating between them all.

maybe we should start a new thread on this, so mods feel free to do so:

The larger the aperture number the "smaller" the hole in which light gets in, a 2.8 is fairly wide open and allows me to shoot "fast" pictures at night.

Add a higher ISO number to the mix and you can speed up the picture a bit more.

a 2.8 with a 3200 ISO gave me a shutter speed at 1/15th of a second. with a 1600 ISO, it would have given me a 1 second (I think) exposure time. Same thing if I increased my aperture number but left my ISO alone.

I still get a bit tripped up occasionally. Like I said, I'm a relative newbie to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shoot with a 28 2.8 at night because of speed, which is a bit of a necessity of where I shoot at night. It was shot with a 2.8 because I don't like the "starring" effect I get with a higher aperture number. I'm hoping to get a new 50mm 1.7 in a few weeks, though. If I have time, I'll give it another shot tonight.

It's all preference :) I hate it when people tell me that I have to shoot a specific way, because that's what looks best, no I meant to do it that way! Otherwise it's not art, but following a formula...

Now lighting (aperture; shutter speed; ISO; flash), that's more science, with art mixed in ;)

My lowest Fstop lens is the Sigma 30mm 1.4, best lens for the money, if it comes in a mount that works for your camera. it makes great bokeh, although the focus motor isn't the fastest.

I'll start a thread in the photography forum for camera equipment questions/tips, that seems like the best place, rather than cluttering up other threads :)

here 'tis http://www.houstonarchitecture.com/haif/topic/26156-photography-tips-tricks-and-equipment/

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all preference :) I hate it when people tell me that I have to shoot a specific way, because that's what looks best, no I meant to do it that way! Otherwise it's not art, but following a formula...

I know, that's what I didn't like about Flickr. In a way you appreciate people's opinions but when they bash you for the artistry you're trying to create, I don't like it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

What is the building on the right of the image? I really hope it get revitalized.

That is the old Texaco building. Slated to be turned into apartments. The latest information indicates work will start this fall. (I wonder if they delayed the work so that the opening roughly coincides with the completion of the rail constuction?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the old Texaco building. Slated to be turned into apartments. The latest information indicates work will start this fall. (I wonder if they delayed the work so that the opening roughly coincides with the completion of the rail constuction?)

I can't imagine that they would screw with their financing just so that they could open at the same time as a rail line that will have minimal effect on their operation. If actual construction was a concern, I'd point out that the dirty construction (digging up the street and laying track) is completed long before the rail line actually opens. The Red Line was largely completed a year before service began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen. Also, does anybody know when work will commence on the underpass? Seems like that would be on the project manager's critical path, but nothing is happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen. Also, does anybody know when work will commence on the underpass? Seems like that would be on the project manager's critical path, but nothing is happening.

According to the website, supposedly the plan is to construct the lines in segments, as opposed to all at once like the Main Street Line. Apparently METRO thinks that will mean that disruptions to local businesses etc. won't be as long as it was for the Main Street line, but I think that it's just as long.

A few things regarding the video: 1) the underpass was supposed to delay things from the beginning but I don't see why they aren't working on it now.

2) it's extremely annoying how long construction projects take in general (not just rail, but street repairs in general). I feel like it would be more cost effective to pay more workers for a shorter amount of time than to pay a smaller amount of workers for a longer period of time, no? I mean it seems like these projects could get done it half the time or less.

and 3) that station near the Dynamo Stadium looks like it was only long enough for one LRV. Are they not planning on running double trains on this route? I know initial ridership probably won't warrant it, but what's preventing them from leaving room for double trains? Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen.

mfastx has it right. Frank Wilson swore all new rail lines after the Red Line would be built in small segments so as not to devastate businesses along the entire route at once as happened downtown.

unamused merchants at the meetings referred to the policy as the death of a thousand cuts as opposed to the shock and awe Red Line project :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) it's extremely annoying how long construction projects take in general (not just rail, but street repairs in general). I feel like it would be more cost effective to pay more workers for a shorter amount of time than to pay a smaller amount of workers for a longer period of time, no? I mean it seems like these projects could get done it half the time or less.

TXDoT was good enough to do that for the Katy Freeway and makes a habit of providing incentives to their contractors for the on-time completion of a project. I think that that is excellent public policy. My time is worth it. That's the whole point of relieving congestion in the first place, after all.

And yeah, I've never been especially receptive to the argument that the construction kills businesses. Retail dollars just get spent elsewhere. And it's not as though core employers are going to move out of town due to a temporary construction project. If there's an adverse impact that might constitute the moral equivalent of a public taking, then just compensate small business owners and let them close shop so that the project can be wrapped up sooner than later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, I've never been especially receptive to the argument that the construction kills businesses. Retail dollars just get spent elsewhere. And it's not as though core employers are going to move out of town due to a temporary construction project. If there's an adverse impact that might constitute the moral equivalent of a public taking, then just compensate small business owners and let them close shop so that the project can be wrapped up sooner than later.

Red Line + Lee Brown tearup of the downtown grid shut down a thriving downtown cafe scene and the collateral small businesses that scene created. most small businesses operate on margins so thin that removing a big % of customers for even a month is death. that some % of the projects that kill them are paid for with their own tax $$$ is ironic.

and it's all those small businesses that provide the fabric for general economic success in any part of town, so your "core employers" may survive but they alone can't create a thriving business culture.

IMO these big construction projects that make people avoid an area until it's finished have an effect more like a hurricane or some other natural disaster rather than being the moral equivalent of a taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red Line + Lee Brown tearup of the downtown grid shut down a thriving downtown cafe scene and the collateral small businesses that scene created. most small businesses operate on margins so thin that removing a big % of customers for even a month is death. that some % of the projects that kill them are paid for with their own tax $$$ is ironic.

and it's all those small businesses that provide the fabric for general economic success in any part of town, so your "core employers" may survive but they alone can't create a thriving business culture.

IMO these big construction projects that make people avoid an area until it's finished have an effect more like a hurricane or some other natural disaster rather than being the moral equivalent of a taking.

Yeah, I know. So what? You've got to crack some eggs to make an omelette. Eggs are a finite resource that cost money. If the project is worth it (which I do not mean to imply that it is), then small business owners can be made whole for their government-imposed losses and move on...temporarily closing during construction, opening new businesses elsewhere, or whatever they please to do. Having been a small business owner myself, I can say that an opportunity to take some money and run might be quite a welcome circumstance to many people.

As for your comments regarding "business culture", I don't get it. People gotta eat somewhere. If not on Harrisburg, then on Canal or Navigation. It'd be the same story all over town. Even if spent differently, the money will be spent. It probably won't be captured by West U or anywhere like that, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they're so far along in some places and barely placing barrels in other places along the same line. Seems like it should've been done simultaneously and all at once instead of spending money on early segments that end up sitting unused for a period of time afterward. Neither the private sector or even TXDoT would typically allow this sort of thing to happen. Also, does anybody know when work will commence on the underpass? Seems like that would be on the project manager's critical path, but nothing is happening.

IIRC, this was planned.

They chose to learn from the red line and do construction in segments so as not to have the entirety of the line in shambles for the whole project.

I'm sure it can be found somewhere on this forum, or on the metro site.

edit: here ya go, they reference it on the progress page:

http://www.gometrorail.org/go/doc/2491/1327987/

see 'phase two'

limit construction to 3-5 block segments

479139.jpg

I'll keep looking for where it was mentioned by metro that this was an appropriate way to minimize impact to the areas, but as I recall, it was decided that this is the faster than the way they did the original red line, and creates less impact to the community.

Edited by samagon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know. So what? You've got to crack some eggs to make an omelette...Having been a small business owner myself, I can say that an opportunity to take some money and run might be quite a welcome circumstance to many people...As for your comments regarding "business culture", I don't get it. People gotta eat somewhere. If not on Harrisburg, then on Canal or Navigation. It'd be the same story all over town...

having been a small business owner myself - and I still am one - I'll just respectfully disagree. with everything you said in the post.

travelers used to stop for bbq, gasoline, whatever in Hempstead. then the 290 bypass got built. travelers still ate bbq, stopped for gasoline, whatever. just not in Hempstead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

having been a small business owner myself - and I still am one - I'll just respectfully disagree. with everything you said in the post.

travelers used to stop for bbq, gasoline, whatever in Hempstead. then the 290 bypass got built. travelers still ate bbq, stopped for gasoline, whatever. just not in Hempstead.

No, I agree completely with your assessment. Its just that I don't care whether consumers' road trip expenditures are made in Hempstead or Chapel Hill. The localities might care, but the statewide agency that sponsors and funds the project should only really concern itself with the possibility that those expenditures might go to somewhere like Louisiana instead...which it won't in your example.

Otherwise you find yourself in a situation where localities, neighborhoods, and special interests can dictate terms to a larger entity, holding even well-conceived projects hostage. And that's ridiculous, too, because the best interests of the few (i.e. restaurateurs) are often poorly aligned with the best interests of the many (i.e. travelers). Not always, but often enough. Allowing special interests that latitude or codifying veto rights into statute would be absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I agree completely with your assessment. Its just that I don't care whether consumers' road trip expenditures are made in Hempstead or Chapel Hill. The localities might care, but the statewide agency that sponsors and funds the project should only really concern itself with the possibility that those expenditures might go to somewhere like Louisiana instead...which it won't in your example.

Otherwise you find yourself in a situation where localities, neighborhoods, and special interests can dictate terms to a larger entity, holding even well-conceived projects hostage. And that's ridiculous, too, because the best interests of the few (i.e. restaurateurs) are often poorly aligned with the best interests of the many (i.e. travelers). Not always, but often enough. Allowing special interests that latitude or codifying veto rights into statute would be absurd.

Afton Oaks?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

then what in your opinion did?

Well, considering that the "heyday" of the downtown club and cafe scene occurred from 2004 to 2006, I wouldn't say that anything killed it, at least during the time of the rail construction. If you look at the evolution of the Main Street scene, it began in the late 90s with a few restaurants and bars. It grew when the "see and be scene" crowd decided downtown was the new thing. From 1999 through the early 2000s the white scenesters flooded the bars and niteclubs. Then, the first clubs began opening on Washington, causing the scene to shift. The clubs began to shift in demographic to a 50/50 white/black crowd, and the music trend toward hip hop and other popular black music. By the mid 2000s, the club scene largely catered to black club goers. However, while whites may claim that it died...and blame METRO...the Main Street crowds were far larger during this time than when the hip white scene occupied Main Street. Eventually, the clubs had run their cycle and began closing in 2006 and later, long after the rail construction was completed.

The rail construction did not kill anything. The scene simply morphed from white centric to black centric, and self-centered whites think that it died off. It didn't. Hence, my statement.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, considering that the "heyday" of the downtown club and cafe scene occurred from 2004 to 2006, I wouldn't say that anything killed it, at least during the time of the rail construction. If you look at the evolution of the Main Street scene, it began in the late 90s with a few restaurants and bars. It grew when the "see and be scene" crowd decided downtown was the new thing. From 1999 through the early 2000s the white scenesters flooded the bars and niteclubs. Then, the first clubs began opening on Washington, causing the scene to shift. The clubs began to shift in demographic to a 50/50 white/black crowd, and the music trend toward hip hop and other popular black music. By the mid 2000s, the club scene largely catered to black club goers. However, while whites may claim that it died...and blame METRO...the Main Street crowds were far larger during this time than when the hip white scene occupied Main Street. Eventually, the clubs had run their cycle and began closing in 2006 and later, long after the rail construction was completed.

The rail construction did not kill anything. The scene simply morphed from white centric to black centric, and self-centered whites think that it died off. It didn't. Hence, my statement.

This is absolutely true. And I'd also say that in addition to Washington, some blame can be put on the Superbowl, I was there on one of the nights of the big parties and it was a crush of people of all colors and races the likes of which I have never (and never will again) see downtown, and I'm sure that more than one or two of them said to themselves "self, this is a rockin' party, lets come back in a few months and have some more fun!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afton Oaks?

Sure, that's a good example. If there would've been a substantial adverse impact, then it should be litigated and they should've been paid off for it if doing so would've brought the project cost down from the alternative or made the trip substantially more convenient for riders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, considering that the "heyday" of the downtown club and cafe scene occurred from 2004 to 2006, I wouldn't say that anything killed it, at least during the time of the rail construction. If you look at the evolution of the Main Street scene, it began in the late 90s with a few restaurants and bars. It grew when the "see and be scene" crowd decided downtown was the new thing. From 1999 through the early 2000s the white scenesters flooded the bars and niteclubs. Then, the first clubs began opening on Washington, causing the scene to shift. The clubs began to shift in demographic to a 50/50 white/black crowd, and the music trend toward hip hop and other popular black music. By the mid 2000s, the club scene largely catered to black club goers. However, while whites may claim that it died...and blame METRO...the Main Street crowds were far larger during this time than when the hip white scene occupied Main Street. Eventually, the clubs had run their cycle and began closing in 2006 and later, long after the rail construction was completed.

The rail construction did not kill anything. The scene simply morphed from white centric to black centric, and self-centered whites think that it died off. It didn't. Hence, my statement.

Well see, now that just opens a pandora's box of racially-charged hypotheses involving mass transit and the presence of black people, including some broader implications thereof. What HAIF really need at this particular moment is someone like TexasVines to say what we're all thinking in order to kick off a fun series of arguments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Otherwise you find yourself in a situation where localities, neighborhoods, and special interests can dictate terms to a larger entity, holding even well-conceived projects hostage. And that's ridiculous, too, because the best interests of the few (i.e. restaurateurs) are often poorly aligned with the best interests of the many (i.e. travelers). Not always, but often enough. Allowing special interests that latitude or codifying veto rights into statute would be absurd.

No doubt you could construct a truth table to establish the validity of what you've said here, and I'm no logician and couldn't hope to dispute it; but I'm confused about the composition of the "many" -- travelers -- whose interests are held captive. Why privilege travelers over other "manys"? Such as the set of property owners: is it not in the collective best interests of that many, so defined, for governments to struggle to exercise their power of eminent domain?

It may be obvious that my concern for the many is provisional. It goes to the core of my few convictions that what is worth preserving is generally not in the hands of the many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt you could construct a truth table to establish the validity of what you've said here, and I'm no logician and couldn't hope to dispute it; but I'm confused about the composition of the "many" -- travelers -- whose interests are held captive. Why privilege travelers over other "manys"? Such as the set of property owners: is it not in the collective best interests of that many, so defined, for governments to struggle to exercise their power of eminent domain?

It may be obvious that my concern for the many is provisional. It goes to the core of my few convictions that what is worth preserving is generally not in the hands of the many.

Niche tends to argue from the macro perspective, discounting any of the individual micros that make up the whole as expendable, as though "the Houston economy" had any meaning beyond the collection of the 10s of 1000s of individual economic actors from 1 person operations to the biggest chemical plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt you could construct a truth table to establish the validity of what you've said here, and I'm no logician and couldn't hope to dispute it; but I'm confused about the composition of the "many" -- travelers -- whose interests are held captive. Why privilege travelers over other "manys"? Such as the set of property owners: is it not in the collective best interests of that many, so defined, for governments to struggle to exercise their power of eminent domain?

It may be obvious that my concern for the many is provisional. It goes to the core of my few convictions that what is worth preserving is generally not in the hands of the many.

In the example, let's say that the universe of property owners exist within Texas. The two most materially impacted subsets of property owners exist in Hempstead and Chapel Hill. The capitalized value of retail sales that are attributable to travelers and to locals whom make a living by selling goods and services to travelers is what supports some amount of the property value of Hempstead. If travelers begin to patronize Chapel Hill as an alternative, then the property values in Chapel Hill rise even if they fall in Hempstead. One community's loss is another's gain. If you're a member of the Hempstead community, then you're going to feel screwed. And I understand why you should feel screwed; that's why I don't have very much of a problem (in theory) with reparations being granted under those circumstances. The government should un-screw Hempstead for having made Chapel Hill prosperous instead. And in fact, if a mechanism can be devised whereby a portion of Chapel Hill's newly found prosperity can be zeroed-in on and captured to pay for un-screwing Hempstead, that's also fine by me. All the better.

The scenario presented is an entirely distributive situation. There are 'x' number of dollars to spend in community 'alpha' or 'beta', neither of which is inhabited by a superior or more deserving race of people. They're all just human (and they all exist either within the universe of property owners or as patrons of property owners). They are on equal footing. So all that's left is that travelers should not be made inconvenienced whenever practical; what is at stake is their time, which is valuable. And after all, there are vastly more travelers that transit those communities each day than there are people that subsist from travelers that also live in those communities.

If you've got any philosophical leg to stand on, it is the notion grounded in Romanticism that local tradition should be upheld for its own sake and enforced by government intervention and at the point of a sword. The United States may as well demand that Russia shut off its gas wells in order to effect the United States' preferred climate at the expense of the warming of Siberia and Russian economic development; Catholic fundamentalists may as well demand the abolition of birth control devices and abortion. Southampton and Boulevard Oaks may as well prevent the widening of a major thoroughfare and then complain when traffic becomes a concern, and then get what they want both times even though they're smack dab in the middle of the urban core of the nation's fourth largest city and fifth largest metropolitan area. And the worst of it is that traditions at any scale are understood superficially by those speaking in the role of the third-person and typically invented by those speaking in the first-person, just as Hitler invented the Aryan race.

Luciaphile, I reject romanticism in favor of humanism. That's my MO. Granted, it's a lot easier to say that than to contribute to the administration of my preferences. I never claimed to be an effective advocate of my beliefs, some kind of social engineer. I shall only state them and hope that others might prevail upon my reasoning to win small humanistic victories, even if I should never know of them.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche tends to argue from the macro perspective, discounting any of the individual micros that make up the whole as expendable, as though "the Houston economy" had any meaning beyond the collection of the 10s of 1000s of individual economic actors from 1 person operations to the biggest chemical plants.

On the contrary.

Consider this. I do not care for labor unions or labor laws. If you don't like your job, then you should do something else. If it's a company town, then move elsewhere. The company will either get the picture or you will remove yourself from them. I believe that the individual should take accountability for their own happiness and not fall into the trap of believing that such a thing can be assured by a union rep or a bureaucrat. The individual has free will and property rights (which should be protected because that is the purpose of government). They are not a slave. If they live like one, it is nobody's fault but their own.

And if the best thing that one can accomplish on their own isn't to their liking, then that's why we have psychiatrists, anti-depressants, and Ayn Rand novels. And we should legalize assisted suicide, because that is the ultimate expression of individualism.

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government should un-screw Hempstead for having made Chapel Hill prosperous instead. And in fact, if a mechanism can be devised whereby a portion of Chapel Hill's newly found prosperity can be zeroed-in on and captured to pay for un-screwing Hempstead, that's also fine by me. All the better.

At the risk of offending the "you didn't build that" English grammar illiterates, "the government" is what made Hempstead prosperous in the 1st place no matter how far back in Anglo Texas history you want to go. Regional winners and losers were chosen from the beginning whether it was the granting of land or RR ROW, choosing the county seat, the building of roads there instead of somewhere else b/c previous choices had made a town a regional commercial center, etc.

Niche your universe, like mine, is "turtles all the way down" and it is pointless to consider "reparations" for some artificial construct like "Hempstead" or "the African American population."

What we are left with is defending our own micro spaces in an attempt to protect our unalienable right to property - ich bin ein NIMBY.

and that's why, to return to topic, affected Houstonians should fight METRO for everything it wants to do until those Houstonians get the maximum amount of justice possible from a government agency acting to disrupt their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of offending the "you didn't build that" English grammar illiterates, "the government" is what made Hempstead prosperous in the 1st place no matter how far back in Anglo Texas history you want to go. Regional winners and losers were chosen from the beginning whether it was the granting of land or RR ROW, choosing the county seat, the building of roads there instead of somewhere else b/c previous choices had made a town a regional commercial center, etc.

Niche your universe, like mine, is "turtles all the way down" and it is pointless to consider "reparations" for some artificial construct like "Hempstead" or "the African American population."

What we are left with is defending our own micro spaces in an attempt to protect our unalienable right to property - ich bin ein NIMBY.

and that's why, to return to topic, affected Houstonians should fight METRO for everything it wants to do until those Houstonians get the maximum amount of justice possible from a government agency acting to disrupt their lives.

I hear what you're saying, however I have no interest in quantifying and subtracting out government benefits that had been allocated so many generations ago that nobody living today can personally remember them. At some point there has to be a cutoff, where the status quo can be defined and beyond which government damages can be defined and accounted for.

As for METRO, of course individuals should fight for their due. I don't deny them that. It's just that the system that ascribes what they're due should not be hijacked by special interests. It should be a cold and calculated manner that can be applied in many circumstances and that will not be changed on account of superficial differences or politically-sensitive individuals or populations. That's how justice is achieved that is equal and inclusive. It must be blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Niche tends to argue from the macro perspective, discounting any of the individual micros that make up the whole as expendable, as though "the Houston economy" had any meaning beyond the collection of the 10s of 1000s of individual economic actors from 1 person operations to the biggest chemical plants.

I was actually hoping The Niche would go all macro on me, but he obstinately stuck to small ball instead. I have now been convinced that from the point of view of the government in whose gift is a four-lane road with a divided median and a Bucee's, or whatever -- it makes no difference who gets the Bucee's and whether that road goes through one town or the other. I'm not sure I would have necessarily thought it did and it is not precisely what I was wondering about, but it is good to have empirical proof of it nonetheless. I assume it was also his backhanded way of telling me my question made no sense. And also of the Law of Conservation of The Niche and luciaphile, that whatever he regards with sanguine approval, I will probably consider a disaster. Still, his posts are engaging, if not directly engaging, and I am now invested enough in the pretend scenario to hope that the Bucee's will cause the tax-o-meter in the pretend town to spin backward and that the people there will be rewarded with tax rebates in the form of beaver nuggets, and that they wil share their bounty with the other town, the one that was spared not awarded the Bucee's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've got any philosophical leg to stand on, it is the notion grounded in Romanticism that local tradition should be upheld for its own sake and enforced by government intervention and at the point of a sword... And the worst of it is that traditions at any scale are understood superficially by those speaking in the role of the third-person and typically invented by those speaking in the first-person, just as Hitler invented the Aryan race.

I think It is important to distinguish between Romanticism as an artistic movement, rather lovely, and as the precursor of a political movement, rotten from the very beginning. It doesn't make sense to pass moral judgment on the former, even if some very nasty characters listened to Beethoven and thought they heard departed giants striding the earth.

I have never grasped or wanted to grasp why Hitler looked to northern India for the origin of his Teutonic tribe. One should always be on guard when somebody exalts the volk. Same with Tolstoy and his feeling for the Russian peasantry, by all accounts the most depraved people that ever lived, known mainly for their proficiency in wife-beating and anti-semitism. They didn't survive modernity, though.

An interesting book on the subject of invented history, by the way, is "The Myth of Scotland," by Hugh Trevor-Roeper. Caveat: he really loathed Scots - I'm not sure why.

But I don't think that rural Texans resisted the Trans-Texas Corridor out of a romantic impulse in remembrance of their lost folkways.

That said: I don't find "local traditions" ersatz at all. Despite our ever-increasing homogenization, regional differences persist in Texas (or so it seems to a city-dweller). East Texas, in particular, remains distinct, and not well-known to the rest of the state. It's true it has lost its "gracious Southern" air. Central Texas retains a residual German tidiness. West Texas has always seemed to me to have the easiest melding of Anglo and Mexican. If I find in a central Texas cemetery plot, among headstones invoking Gott, a grave outlined with rocks or shells, I think: East Texas. People's names: in West Texas women are much more likely to be named some feminization of their daddy's name: Danna, Glenna, Steva. Or ending in -dora or -lee, but rarely a Southern double name. The barns, even the various types of joints of wooden buildings are indicative of the provenance of their builders. A wonderful UT professor and German Texan named Terry Jordan wrote several books on this subject.

Not "of concern" or interest, by fiat, The Niche, I know, I got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luciaphile, I reject romanticism in favor of humanism. That's my MO. Granted, it's a lot easier to say that than to contribute to the administration of my preferences. I never claimed to be an effective advocate of my beliefs, some kind of social engineer. I shall only state them and hope that others might prevail upon my reasoning to win small humanistic victories, even if I should never know of them.

Replied in Anything You Want, lest I try the moderator's patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humanism? Romanticism? Tax rebates in the form of Beaver Nuggets?

I thought this was about the next light rail line.

The debate centers on whether it was wiser to construct the entire line all at once and more quickly or to construct it much more slowly and in segments, comparing the impact on local businesses. I suggested that small business owners should be compensated financially for any implied government taking. Rather than refute the basis for financial compensation, the folks on here tried to defend constructed notions of neighborhood and community that are founded in Romanticism. That's how we got here, but we are on topic.

What luciaphile moved to the 'Anything Goes' thread, she did so thoughtfully and appropriately.

(Next time, before claiming that we're off topic, you should read the thread.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate centers on whether it was wiser to construct the entire line all at once and more quickly or to construct it much more slowly and in segments, comparing the impact on local businesses. I suggested that small business owners should be compensated financially for any implied government taking. Rather than refute the basis for financial compensation, the folks on here tried to defend constructed notions of neighborhood and community that are founded in Romanticism. That's how we got here, but we are on topic.

What luciaphile moved to the 'Anything Goes' thread, she did so thoughtfully and appropriately.

(Next time, before claiming that we're off topic, you should read the thread.)

After staying in vancouver for a week, it's fairly obvious the light rail system is a joke and any rail system should be underground or elevated here. The speed, efficiency, convenience, and comfort is unmatched. Houston is a half century behind any "world class" city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

travelers used to stop for bbq, gasoline, whatever in Hempstead. then the 290 bypass got built. travelers still ate bbq, stopped for gasoline, whatever. just not in Hempstead.

While the Hempsteads are becoming the norm there is always the odd Marfa example that finds a way to survive or emerge from obscurity despite being off the beaten path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After staying in vancouver for a week, it's fairly obvious the light rail system is a joke and any rail system should be underground or elevated here. The speed, efficiency, convenience, and comfort is unmatched. Houston is a half century behind any "world class" city.

I've been hearing some anti-Vancouver stuff lately--companies pulling out, and it just not being a great city. Frankly, I think "world-class" is a pretentious term thrown around that people attach to whatever city has the best looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the Hempsteads are becoming the norm there is always the odd Marfa example that finds a way to survive or emerge from obscurity despite being off the beaten path.

Hard to compare to Hempstead - Marfa is a plaything of the art-patron rich, a very recent development and one that likely will last only until the rich turn their gaze elsewhere.

Edited by IHB2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been hearing some anti-Vancouver stuff lately--companies pulling out, and it just not being a great city. Frankly, I think "world-class" is a pretentious term thrown around that people attach to whatever city has the best looks.

I think that it implies which cities tourists can most easily idealize themselves as living in without everyday familial or financial constraints or the need for employment. That's how they see a city when they visit it, after all, and most people lack the imagination necessary to impose realistic expectations upon themselves.

That said, Slick Vik's comment was pretty much random. The East End line is probably the one least deserving to be built up, given the low density, minimal congestion, and the ready availability of alternate parallel routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to compare to Hempstead - Marfa is a plaything of the art-patron rich, a very recent development and one that likely will last only until the rich turn their gaze elsewhere.

I think Hempstead should target these same patrons with a campaign touting that there is "plenty of Hemp in Hempstead."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hempstead should target these same patrons with a campaign touting that there is "plenty of Hemp in Hempstead."

and the whole munchies thing would revitalize the flagging bbq businesses that the 290 bypass ruined - thus providing Niche's reparations in a way that even a libertarian could support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to METRORail Green Line

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...