Ion District In Midtown

[H-Town Man]

12 minutes ago, Texasota said:

Oh come on. Just because it isn't finished doesn't mean it's *new.*

 

Not sure if this was sarcastic. Cathedrals traditionally take about a century to build. Was Chartres new in 1150 or was it new in 1250? Depends on your perspective, probably both.

 

[H-Town Man]

28 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

Considering that Lutherans started out as the antithesis to the over-embellished and over-indulgent Catholics back during the time of the reformation, there is a good reason why lutheran churches are plain. Its literally what they are all about. But plain and simple can be beautiful too. 

 

Good point, although stripping all the ornament off the cathedrals and whitewashing the interior really was atrocious. Better than the Calvinists though, who shot all the stained glass out of the windows. Beauty is ok.

 

[Texasota]

Not saying it's not possible, just saying it's the exception to the rule. Really I was thinking of the new co-cathedral downtown, which is some kind of hideous prison-church.

 

And no, I wouldn't call a building designed over a century ago *new* just because it's still under construction.

 

My real point is that the existing sanctuary is quite nice, so why replace it?

[rechlin]

That particular Baptist church wouldn't need a cathedral anyway, since they don't have a bishop to sit on the cathedra.  And the co-cathedral downtown was just built a decade ago and is also quite nice (a Ziegler Cooper design).

[Sanjorade]

19 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Really? I'm going to just assume that you aren't aware of architectural history (which if you aren't in the profession then its understandable. This isn't a jab at you or anything). I would consider doing a bit of research and maybe you might think twice about this statement.

 

I would google nearly every single architectural movement and you will notice that often religious architecture has always been at the forefront or a poster child for a particular movement.

 

In fact they were often the first to try new styles as a continuous process of updating their image, stature, and their notions about getting closer to God. This is coming from an agnostic btw.

 

 

 

You make a good point about architecture. As a means of staying relevant, it was necessary for religions to seek architects that could design the latest and greatest. 

 

Do yall think that religions in this day and age will seek to innovate in the digital age as a means to stay relevant? 

 

Funny enough, online porn companies spear head quite a bit of innovation in contrast. 

[H-Town Man]

On 10/27/2018 at 8:35 AM, Sanjorade said:

 

You make a good point about architecture. As a means of staying relevant, it was necessary for religions to seek architects that could design the latest and greatest. 

 

Do yall think that religions in this day and age will seek to innovate in the digital age as a means to stay relevant? 

 

Funny enough, online porn companies spear head quite a bit of innovation in contrast. 

 

Innovation is driven by necessity. New denominations tend to innovate more to get the attention of new members, while in the more established traditions, the tradition is often what attracts people. In Catholicism, there is an increasing desire to return to a traditional form of the Mass, with the view that something valuable was lost amid the innovations of the late 20th century.

 

Probably the greatest Christian innovation that most people don't realize was the codex, the form of the modern book, which was developed by Christian missionaries in the Roman period to replace the more awkward scroll, whose use continued much longer among the pagans. Sort of the iPhone of its day.

[bachanon]

On 10/27/2018 at 8:35 AM, Sanjorade said:

 

You make a good point about architecture. As a means of staying relevant, it was necessary for religions to seek architects that could design the latest and greatest. 

 

Do yall think that religions in this day and age will seek to innovate in the digital age as a means to stay relevant? 

 

Funny enough, online porn companies spear head quite a bit of innovation in contrast. 

The new Bahai Temple in Santiago is innovative and represents the tenets of the Bahai faith, oneness....all paths lead to the same place.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524QKW2HmLM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRT61YB0hSQ (TED Talk on building sacred spaces; highlights the Bahai Temple Santiago at the end.)

 

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, bachanon said:

The new Bahai Temple in Santiago is innovative and represents the tenets of the Bahai faith, oneness....all paths lead to the same place.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=524QKW2HmLM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRT61YB0hSQ (TED Talk on building sacred spaces; highlights the Bahai Temple Santiago at the end.)

 

 

That was one I was thinking as well.

 

Its like...I get it. Some people want nothing to do with religion or think its outdated (both not sophisticated arguments. again coming from an Agnostic). The non-innovation argument just seems like a lame strawman argument. Innovation can come from any point on the spectrum. Left, right, top and bottom.

[rechlin]

And of course you can't forget the iconic Baha'i temple in New Delhi.

[BeerNut]

Wonder if Rice had any influence on getting Turner to shutdown the homeless camp.   https://abc13.com/mayor-orders-midtown-homeless-encampment-fenced-off/4602887/

[CaptainJilliams]

50 minutes ago, BeerNut said:

Wonder if Rice had any influence on getting Turner to shutdown the homeless camp.   https://abc13.com/mayor-orders-midtown-homeless-encampment-fenced-off/4602887/

 

I'll I can say is thank goodness. I know it's just going to become bus parking, but at least it won't be as shady driving through the area.

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

nope, that area won't be as shady, but now they're going to move to downtown, and in 5 years, downtown will die a slow death and become a seedy area again.

[UtterlyUrban]

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

[jgriff]

28 minutes ago, UtterlyUrban said:

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

I agree.

 

 I would consider most of what we hear about the homeless to be fake news. 

 

 

[j_cuevas713]

2 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

While I agree, there the majority simply don’t want to work. My GF works for Star of Hope as a case manager and she tells me most of the homeless just don’t want basic responsibilities. 

[Highrise Tower]

2 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

And herein is the problem:

 

“The city says they will all be given the opportunity to go to shelters with the help of The Way Home Coalition, but only a handful of people appeared to be taking the city up on that offer.”

 

I am tired of the term “homeless” to describe addicts and the mentally ill.  As a society we need to stop using the euphemism “homeless” and start referring to folks as what they are:  mentally ill and/or addicts.  I have been told by the good folks at Star of Hope during one of my volunteer days that “the vast majority” of the folks on the street are addicts or mentally ill.  Star of Hope  deals with it daily.  They get that there are the occasional “mother and child” or nuclear family fallen on hard times and the shelters around the City marshal resources to help these folks.  But increasingly, i understand, they are seeing addicts and mentally ill.

 

“Homelessness” in America is only marginally about “folks hitting a rough patch after losing a job and having a medical bill too”.   It’s really about addicts and mentally ill.  Once society starts talking in that language, society can begin to create viable programs and enact viable laws, that deal with the problems of addiction or mental illness rather than the outcome.

 

 

Yes, but unfortunately we are in the wrong state of that type of compassion. We have a world class medical center, we should also be leading in mental health and drug programs/funds. It's the same industry after all.

 

Waiting on the UT Health Continuum of Care Campus for Behavioral Health and the Menninger Clinic expansion

[Nate99]

13 hours ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

 

Yes, but unfortunately we are in the wrong state of that type of compassion. We have a world class medical center, we should also be leading in mental health and drug programs/funds. It's the same industry after all.

 

Waiting on the UT Health Continuum of Care Campus for Behavioral Health and the Menninger Clinic expansion

 

Not sure whose more compassionate state might do it better. These same types of people are dying of Hepatitis A and suffering from diseases that have been effectively controlled in the modern world since before WWII in California. 

 

No one's political orthodoxy is providing an answer, that's for sure. Caring for these people has to be among the most difficult tasks one can imagine. 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2018 by Nate99

[Highrise Tower]

42 minutes ago, Nate99 said:

 

Not sure whose more compassionate state might do it better. These same types of people are dying of Hepatitis A and suffering from diseases that have been effectively controlled in the modern world since before WWII in California. 

 

No one's political orthodoxy is providing an answer, that's for sure. Caring for these people has to be among the most difficult tasks one can imagine. 

 

 

 

(New York, NY, December 12, 2017) Mental Illness Policy Org released the first study to rank all fifty states based on the percentage of state-controlled funds each state spends on mental illness. States that spend a higher percentage of their budget on mental illness are ranked as generous and those that spend a lower percentage are ranked as stingy.

 

This study found the most generous states in mental health spending are Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. The stingiest states are Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Delaware. The most generous states, Maine and Pennsylvania (5.6%), allocates eight times more as a percentage of total state spending than the stingiest state, Arkansas (.7%).

Read more at: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/national-studies/funds-for-mental-illness-is-your-state-generous-or-stingy-press-release.html

[Nate99]

11 minutes ago, ekdrm2d1 said:

 

(New York, NY, December 12, 2017) Mental Illness Policy Org released the first study to rank all fifty states based on the percentage of state-controlled funds each state spends on mental illness. States that spend a higher percentage of their budget on mental illness are ranked as generous and those that spend a lower percentage are ranked as stingy.

 

This study found the most generous states in mental health spending are Maine, Pennsylvania and Arizona. The stingiest states are Arkansas, West Virginia, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Delaware. The most generous states, Maine and Pennsylvania (5.6%), allocates eight times more as a percentage of total state spending than the stingiest state, Arkansas (.7%).

Read more at: https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/national-studies/funds-for-mental-illness-is-your-state-generous-or-stingy-press-release.html

 

Here in stingy Texas, we have a lower homeless population rate than in generous Pennsylvania, Maine, or Arizona.   Whatever value proportional state spending on mental health has, it has nothing to do with homeless rates. 

 

Pennsylvania (generous) spends $1.98 million in mental health dollars per chronically homeless individual (CHI) (your link's stat x total state spending/# of CHI) while right next door in Delaware (stingy) they spend only $638k/CHI with an almost identical rate of chronic homelessness overall.  If tripling the available expenditures for a given population that clearly needs that particular service has no impact on the rate of homelessness, you might be barking up the wrong policy tree, unless you measure virtue by what proportion of the public kitty you get dedicated to your particular cause without regard to need or results.

 

https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1500&fn[]=2900&fn[]=6100&fn[]=10100&fn[]=14100

 

https://ballotpedia.org/Total_state_government_expenditures

 

 

[rechlin]

Looks like this is dead.  From an email sent to deposit-holders today, blaming Harvey and Trump's tariffs:

 

Quote

During the last six months, our construction and estimation crew at Surge Homes have been working hard to obtain the final construction cost of Isabella at Midtown.  Over 50 construction trades and suppliers have submitted bids for each of their disciplines in order to compete for work and get the lowest cost possible without sacrificing quality.

 

Many changes have occurred since we first purchased the 4001 Main street site.  As you know, following the historic hurricane Harvey, construction costs increased significantly and one year later they have not come down.  Additionally, recent tariffs on imported construction material to America are contributing to a rise in construction costs.

 

The process has been a challenging effort because costs went up dramatically.  These increases are totally out of our control and our market research has indicated to us that our VIPs at Isabella at Midtown are disinclined to pay a higher amount for their condominiums.  Consequently, as per our VIP Certificate stipulates, we have decided to exercise our rights to not go forward with the construction of Isabella at Midtown.

 

We are really sorry about this turn of events and we want you to know that your deposit of $1900 per VIP Certificate is totally yours, in an escrow account as always, and will be addressed the way you choose to.  Before you make your decision regarding your deposit, we invite you to consider the fact that Surge Homes owns several current residential developments that are move-in ready or currently under construction in Houston's Inner Loop.  This available or upcoming inventory is not affected as much by construction costs hikes and represent great purchases. As a VIP Certificate holder you will be able to purchase at a discount.

 

 

[cspwal]

Well shoot

[houstontexasjack]

I wonder if this site will become another target for Rice University's Innovation District.  I believe it's catty-corner to the northwest from the Sears auto service center lot.

[Triton]

50 minutes ago, rechlin said:

Looks like this is dead.  From an email sent to deposit-holders today, blaming Harvey and Trump's tariffs:

 

 

 

Wonder if we'll see other construction projects be put on hold until the tariffs subside.

[Naviguessor]

Shoot is right. Naviguessor was on the that List.  This location would be perfect for a small condo.  Although...they were looking a little expensive. 

[Highrise Tower]

Can't believe Apple chose Austin for their new $1 billion campus.

 

We have so little tech. Amazon, and now Apple skipped us.

[editor]

4 minutes ago, gclass said:

^^^ austin already harbors TONS of citizen migrants in from california.  therefore, their new and prospective labor force shall be skilled, knowledgeable, and quite prepared for the culture of apple.

 

Plus, Apple already had a big operation in Austin.

 

As someone who currently works in the tech "bubble" and previously worked in Seattle's tech bubble, I've never understood the attraction of either Seattle of Austin.  San Francisco makes sense because of air transportation links, climate, and a good number of big city amenities for a city its size.  But in my experience, both Seattle and Austin are more hype than reality.

 

Austin, at least, has a big university churning out people who can think.  Seattle has banana slugs and guys commuting to work at video game companies on unicycles wearing kilts.

[Spades]

8 minutes ago, editor said:

 

Plus, Apple already had a big operation in Austin.

 

As someone who currently works in the tech "bubble" and previously worked in Seattle's tech bubble, I've never understood the attraction of either Seattle of Austin.  San Francisco makes sense because of air transportation links, climate, and a good number of big city amenities for a city its size.  But in my experience, both Seattle and Austin are more hype than reality.

 

Austin, at least, has a big university churning out people who can think.  Seattle has banana slugs and guys commuting to work at video game companies on unicycles wearing kilts.

As does Seattle. The University of Washington is located there. Great city that also has tons of big city amenities. I think you're selling Seattle short here.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Spades

[editor]

Just now, Spades said:

As does Seattle. The University of Washington is located there. Great city that also has tons of big city amenities. I think you're selling Seattle short here.

 

You're right — I'm a little hard on Seattle.  But mostly because I lived there for a while, opened up a business there, made a couple of partnerships in the tech space, then moved away when I realized it wasn't everything everyone thinks it is.

 

The quality of the graduates of the University of Washington that I met was... subpar.  But then, I've experienced that with a bunch of other supposedly top-notch schools: Northwestern, UNLV, Rutgers.  It seems to be that excellence is more about the individual than the school they went to.  One of the best employees I ever had was a woman who graduated from one of the crappiest colleges in downstate Illinois.  

 

I never tried hiring anyone out of Austin, so my image of its graduates hasn't been tarnished by personal experience yet.

[cspwal]

Looks like it's no longer on Surge homes website

https://www.surgehomes.com/developments 

[j_cuevas713]

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2018/12/20/houston-leads-u-s-in-tech-job-hiring-plans-for.html