Rweil Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Nancy is far from perfect, but my experiences in dealing with her have been far better than with her collegues. It's the difference between a small specific error or lack of grammatical clarity and having what you've said torn apart, words reconfigured, meanings butchered, all within what was supposed to be the safety of quotation marks.In an email that I received from Nancy Sarnoff today:Ed Wulfe says they have not pulled out. But I haven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2H Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Nancy is far from perfect, but my experiences in dealing with her have been far better than with her collegues. It's the difference between a small specific error or lack of grammatical clarity and having what you've said torn apart, words reconfigured, meanings butchered, all within what was supposed to be the safety of quotation marks. what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 what? I think Niche is black and white in terms of what constitutes 'journalism' and has been quoted incorrectly in the past, but Nancy merely lacks attention to detail. Quotes have never been sacred, though. Sources, yes. Quotes, ehhh..... Niche, maybe you need a publicist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Niche, maybe you need a publicist!I only ever seem to interact with Chronicle people anymore, and I've learned from experience how to keep them on a short leash. Nancy is the exception. She won't burn me and has always acted in good faith. This is a good quality for a beat reporter to have; otherwise nobody would tell her anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C2H Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I think Niche is black and white in terms of what constitutes 'journalism' and has been quoted incorrectly in the past, but Nancy merely lacks attention to detail. I understood the first sentence of Niche's paragraph but i couldn't relay the last part when he was talking about what i said being torn apart. I wasn't meaning to be difficult but i just wanted him to clarify what he was saying at the end. Black and White..!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tierwestah Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I understood the first sentence of Niche's paragraph but i couldn't relay the last part when he was talking about what i said being torn apart. I wasn't meaning to be difficult but i just wanted him to clarify what he was saying at the end. Black and White..!! You're not alone C2H, i couldn't relay that last part either. Too wordy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 So what's the status on this? Is the 66 story Ritz still in the works? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENGcons Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 So what's the status on this? Is the 66 story Ritz still in the works?My source is telling me that the Ritz in in the works but is more than likely not going to be 66 floors, it is probably going to be two 30 story towers, one for hotel, and one for condo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Owl Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 My source is telling me that the Ritz in in the works but is more than likely not going to be 66 floors, it is probably going to be two 30 story towers, one for hotel, and one for condo.That's really disappointing. Sounds similar to what the Ritz did in Dallas....not really a meaningful addition to the skyline. I think we'd all have preferred the taller, single tower. Any idea why they would change it up? Just too expensive to build one single tower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I would figure that it just makes more sense to build two of the same height if the land is available. Since others have said the higher you go, the more expensive, seems like an easy decision.The only reason I could see them doing it in one is for recognition, which they probably don't need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENGcons Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 That's really disappointing. Sounds similar to what the Ritz did in Dallas....not really a meaningful addition to the skyline. I think we'd all have preferred the taller, single tower. Any idea why they would change it up? Just too expensive to build one single tower?I believe it has to do with financing the buildngs with the sales from another. Condo sales could finance the building of the second tower and visa versa if you build two instead of one. That is my assumption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProHouston Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Here are some new pics, the first is from 2/28 and the second is from this morning. They have now filled in all the old basement level parking with dirt to raise it to street level. That's at least 8 feet of dirt across the entire construction area (excluding the southern most 20% which was already at grade. The plumbing is going in now and I would expect we'll really start seeing marked progress soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 awesomethanks for the updated pics!i drive by there everyday and its great to see an overview instead of a side or through a fence view! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I would figure that it just makes more sense to build two of the same height if the land is available. Since others have said the higher you go, the more expensive, seems like an easy decision.Unless of course you just want to make a daring piece of architecture that will stand out and be a landmark. But no one has done that with a skyscraper in Houston in 25 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister X Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) ^ Debbie Downer ^ Edited March 6, 2008 by Mister X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Waaaaa Waaaaaaaa - That kills me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) Wrong thread. Edited March 6, 2008 by Trae Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) Brothers say City Hall trying to pull a fast oneThey claim their nest egg is being scrambled to help developerInstead of enjoying the proceeds from their investment, however, the 75-year-old twins are locked in a battle with the city of Houston. In an unusual use of its eminent domain authority, the city has condemned the property to develop a small "pocket park" on the edge of a large, upscale redevelopment project.The brothers are challenging the city's action in court, arguing that the park is a pretext for the city's true purpose: to assist a prominent local developer who has amassed most of the property around theirs for a 21-acre mixed-use development known as BLVD Place.No one mentioned the idea of a park on the site, they said, until after they stopped negotiating with Wulfe. full articlethis is sad. the brothers refused to sell to wulfe AND the uptown district. then the city claimed eminent domain to get the property. Edited March 7, 2008 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MyEvilTwin Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 By the look of their picture, looks like they don't have much longer. 1.4 million isn't good enough for he amount of time they have to live? C'mon.My God, did you really just say that? Wow, that's just... wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernicke Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 Wow... This story is kind of sad.On one level I think a park in BLVD would be a nice addition.On another, it seems the brothers are the victim of a government screw-job. They bought the property in 1982 for $360K. The city offers them $398 in 2004. Wulfe $1.4 mil in 2006. The city $433 in 2007. Something doesn't seem right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) My God, did you really just say that? Wow, that's just... wrong.What? It's just an honest evaluation. Nothing against the men. But are they being greedy or just need to maintain an extravagent lifestyle? Seriously, they look at least 80. If I were them, I wouldn't be thinking I have a ton of time left on this earth. I'd say 1.4 should be plenty. Another half a mil won't buy them more life. Edited March 7, 2008 by lockmat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 What? It's just an honest evaluation. Nothing against the men. But are they being greedy or just need to maintain an extravagent lifestyle.what gives you any indication they are being greedy or they live extravagantly?Seriously, they look at least 80. If I were them, I wouldn't be thinking I have a ton of time left on this earth. I'd say 1.4 should be plenty. Another half a mil won't buy them more life.adolf are you against jews and other immigrants too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) what gives you any indication they are being greedy or they live extravagantly?No, I'm not saying they are. I'm wondering if those are possibilities.adolf are you against jews and other immigrants too?haha. c'mon yall. yall are bein overly pc. I see nothing wrong w/ what I said. Edited March 7, 2008 by lockmat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I see nothing wrong w/ what I said.neither did adolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 neither did adolflol, i'm sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieDidIt Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) This use of eminent domain so wrong it makes me sick. Why doesn't the COH tell the Pavillions to budget space WITH the compound, instead of taking someone's house/private property. Oh, yeah I forgot about greasing the palms.......... Edited March 7, 2008 by KatieDidIt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 What does the reason for them not selling have to do with it? Lockmat, are you in the habit of selling your property for less than it is worth, merely because a developer wants it? For that matter, why does Wulfe want the property? Is he being greedy or living extravagantly? He's getting pretty old, too. How many hundred million more does HE need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayshoota Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 (edited) Amazing how the city will use eminent domain to get rid of these guys but refuses to do anything about the Central Bank building, the old Holiday Inn and the Savoy. I know that topic has been exhausted on here but just find it ironic. The purpose of eminent domain is to get rid of blight for a public purpose and I can think of plenty of public reasons that land could be used for. Edited March 7, 2008 by jayshoota Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 What does the reason for them not selling have to do with it? Lockmat, are you in the habit of selling your property for less than it is worth, merely because a developer wants it? For that matter, why does Wulfe want the property? Is he being greedy or living extravagantly? He's getting pretty old, too. How many hundred million more does HE need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.