mattyt36

Well thanks, was not implying that it was unusual, just did not know what the prior Main St alignment was. I assume it wasn’t current Fannin north of Holcombe?

I'd love to know more of the history of this name change/realignment--first I've heard!

Anyone know what happened to Seaside Lounge? They seem to have closed around the same time.

Data on this would be grrrrrrrrrrrrreat.

Disappointed, Augie, I would've thought your hypothesis would've been FEM BOT.

Schizophrenia is a terrible disease. Beto O'Rourke for Texas governor: Houston Chronicle Editorial Board Since @Blue Dogs is such a fan of endorsements (who has the time these days to think for one's self, really?!), I suppose he'll just have to hold his nose and vote for Beto. (Also in today's edition, a great photo of Lily Munster with short hair here. Maybe she should get props for none of that caked-on makeup running off her face from sweat during the hot Houston summer. Also, where's her gun?)

The federal government also has its own requirements attached to the grants that every commercial service airport in the country receives. (Similar requirements are associated with almost every federal government grant.) Airport Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov) How can chickens own businesses? That sounds silly.

But whom has the San Antonio Express-News endorsed? Why is she so averse to red? Shame issues? Is that the reason she also seems to use so much foundation? She's beginning to look like a Munster. It's almost like . . . they're deliberately . . . trying to . . . make her look . . . white?! NAH, surely that can't be the case!!!!! I prefer the more natural, Rosie O'Donnell look. (I wonder if she'll be able to keep the weight off in addition to her newly found "whiter-ness"?)

In a very short period of time, she is getting flooded with money while Hidalgo is getting subjected to coordinated harassment. Now this bizarre endorsement. People can yap about crime all they want, but this election is, first and foremost, about turning over the County's voting system to the State.

OMG what do we do?!

Yes, I must say the people who wear those things do look and act like they would wholly believe such a thing, so I can't say I'm surprised.

And, IIRC, guns don’t work against those, so you must really find that confounding there, Augie.

Indeed, consider me TRIGGERED. Always good to get the endorsement of zombies. Will definitely mobilize that burgeoning population. Hope they have Voter ID.

And ship them to San Antonio?

World's shortest boulevard

This is par for the course as to how discussions about crime typically work.

I recently reread this article by our wonderful and own Mimi Swartz from the earlier days of planning for a lot of these investments--it really is a great "primary source" for the record book. In re Memorial Park, there are some great anecdotes in there about not wanting to make the park "too nice." Finally, in April 2015, the city council unanimously if begrudgingly approved Woltz’s stunning $220 million overhaul. Councilman Oliver Pennington was still worried. “We don’t want to make it too nice,” he warned. How Houston Became the Model For Green Space in Cities (texasmonthly.com)

Well, it's certainly not ingenuous!

Open discuss all you want. The only problem appears to be when you point out that a lot of what is being talked about is unfeasible and, while presented as prescriptive (and an on-the-surface simple one at that . . . e.g., invest in transit!), in actuality, it turns out to be little more than a statement of personal preference. When asked how to fix, the response is typically (not @004n063 in this regard), well City X has a train to the airport, City Y demolished its freeways, or have you ever been to Amsterdam?! I have been interested in urban planning and transit for most of my adult life, and 10 years ago (maybe 15), I would've been making similar posts. The problem seemed much less complex and one that just required rebuilding "the right way," or building "the right things." I'm not sure I ever even got so far as to acknowledge the reality that my view may not be shared by a majority of others living under the same conditions. No way, I'd say, they just "don't know what they want," or "they'll come to like it when it's done." It's a very autocratic, anti-democratic view at the end of the day. (I'm afraid it even registers a bit on the Fashy scale, as I'm sure @august948 would agree.) I don't know how a discipline that has screwed up so greatly before (let's not kid ourselves that none of these highways weren't planned by practitioners of transportation planning, let's not kid ourselves that master-planned suburbs like The Woodlands weren't built by developers with an earnest desire to improve the environment) and can't seem to offer much today in the way of real solutions for car-oriented American cities other than anecdotes about Europe and the same cities before freeways hasn't reoriented itself because those approaches are futile. Confining this message board only to the traditional (well, perhaps not the best word, perhaps "current orthodoxy" is more appropriate) views is not the definition of an "open discussion" (not that I didn't already know that @samagon had his own definition . . . perhaps best paraphrased as "my way or the highway" . . . or perhaps "my way is no highway" will be better (although that wouldn't be accurate, either, as he seems to be perfectly fine with highways other than ones that go by his house, so maybe "while my way actually is this highway, no highway for you") . . . I jest). I think if you reread you will see I, by definition, was discussing by engaging and asking questions as to how @004n063 thought his recommendations could be feasibly accomplished. (You may disagree with my style, of course, but that is a matter of aesthetics.) How can the same people who lectured us about disrespecting people's "way of life" by demolishing established neighborhoods to build freeways in the 1950s and 1960s employ implicitly the same approach by telling millions of people that their "way of life" is morally bad or not sufficiently aesthetically pleasing to you? It's not a winning argument, and nakedly so. These people with the Stop IH-45 Now, they're caricatures of caricatures of what they think happened in the 1950s. Wanting to stop the demolition of an apartment building purchased with gas taxes because Houston has a "housing crisis"? And why? Because they said so? Absolutely inane, there is no other word. There is no vision for the future other than to not build the NHHIP. If NHHIP doesn't get built, the money they're getting from God knows whose deep pockets they're getting it from will dry up and the group will be gone. There are scores of stories of "do-gooders" trying to bring water and sanitation and other new methods to remote villages in Africa and elsewhere that fail the minute the Westerners leave. Why? Because there is little appreciation of their existing way of life. It's not that they particularly "like" unsanitary conditions, it's just that they already have their own ways of doing things and the "modern" or "scientifically recommended" methods aren't intuitive to them or cause other unintended consequences that the scientists either dismissed or didn't even consider to begin with. Suburbanites, likewise, will be the first to tell you they don't like traffic, but they'll also be the first to tell you they won't ride the bus, right after they tell you they come into the city proper "only when they have to." I don't see how making their commutes or journeys worse, or telling them they have to move, or "punishing them" by giving incentives to others is going to work out well in the end. Now, if we are somehow able to mobilize politically such that we reorient the transportation funding mechanisms in the State and the US, that'd be a different story, but otherwise your best opportunity for rebuilding "right" or building the "right" things is for an utter catastrophe to hit the region. Yet, even that "opportunity" is not likely to be realized due to the need to quickly rebuild (IF there even is a need to rebuild, that is).

It's very hard for me to disagree on any of this from a theoretical standpoint. It's the execution, of course, that I'd say we're nowhere near "mobilized" for politically. (And that's assuming that the majority wants the same outcome . . . which is . . . quite an assumption.) It sure is nice to think about, though.

SIR, with all due respect, let me "repeat yourself": That is about as absolutist (not to mention ridiculously self-defeatist . . . I mean, have you ever been to Lagos?! Not sure I'd vote for throwing myself on the pyre for being North America's sad orphan of not having zoning when the ultimate benefit would materialize for cities like Lagos, I mean, that is missing the point entirely again). As it comes, nevermind the fact that it is more than likely the majority of people living in Houston may agree with you on Houston "having a traffic problem," trust me, the problem you're talking about is not the same problem they're talking about. Your list is on the surface anodyne, even (2) at first glance seems reasonable, but alas, we're back to plants-that-don't-get-water-generally-don't-grow/truism logic. Ah, yes, we need to "invest in transit, dense housing, and multiuse developments." I asked for your "plan" before, but now I will be more direct and ask you to expound . . . Tell me exactly what the above means to you and exactly how you think it can be accomplished, (given, er, that sad mistress most of us know as the Goddess of Reality.) Then tell me what the end state will be--you've already given one vision of the end state, viz "If they don't do as I say, the economy needs to collapse." (I'm very big on false equivalencies between the left and the right, but in this particular case I'll have to agree, the right has a point.) And, while you're at it, send me the long list of cities in the US that have become European (you know, more like Amsterdam with a bakery on every corner so you don't even have to bike to it) with investments in transit. Surely Dallas must be at the top. Surely if not Dallas, well, then Buffalo, I mean per capita, they must have invested way more in transit. The last time I was there, it didn't seem as if they were reaping the benefits more than 40 years after the fact, but maybe one day! 🤞 (I don't want to be a spoiler, but could your answer possibly be . . . that Dallas just didn't . . . do it . . . right? Sounds familiar. I'm so old I remember hearing Atlanta didn't do it right before I remember hearing LA didn't do it right. If only we could get it right . . . so, please, sir, expand on number 2. And while you're at it, expand on (4) . . . what do you do when the "impermeable superblocks" already exist? Do you rebuild? Or do you just say "to hell with those suckers"? If either (1) or (2), please explain to me how that would work politically . . . remember, I want you in office! I'm much more hopeful you have a third option cuz I've thought about it a lot and I have come up empty, but, admittedly, as stated above, I'm a simpleton.) P.S. @Luminare's response is much better than mine (great application of a meme!), as always, although I must take issue with his taking issue with your recommendation #6. We absolutely should be planting as many trees as possible. (Houston having plenty of trees?! I know it feels that way if you live on the east side, but let's spread the wealth westward! Have you ever been to Atlanta . . . they may have not done "investing heavily in transit right," but they can say without irony that they have plenty of trees.)

Honest question--do you feel the above to be in any way insightful? As written, you seem to be presenting it as such, but to me it's about as insightful as "Plants that get more water generally grow better than those that don't" (i.e., it's a truism). From such a truism flows, "Well you need to water the plants that don't get watered," which is about the same as saying, "If the City has no walking, well you need to redesign it for walking." I mean, objectively not false by any standard, but kind of misses the point that there (1) may not be enough water to go around; or (2) GOOD LUCK. In neither case can you snap your fingers and make more water, nor relocate millions of people. (I guess you can rain dance for more water, maybe you can rain dance for changing the urban composition of the City with rain . . . Houston would be a great candidate for that . . . and, yes, that's a multi-level metaphor . . . ) This is hilarious in its own, only Houston way. #OnlyInHouston (I mean, maybe next year on Mo on Netflix he can say "Some of my best friends are Dutch" in response to a joke about Goldmember's hatred of the Dutch from Austin Powers . . . which starred . . . our own Beyonce). So multi-level . . . I'm not necessarily sure they are "wildly different" unless your yardstick is physical composition. If your only yardstick is physical composition, well, I'd say you are missing the largest part of the pie. (Although The Netherlands and Houston ironically have a very similar physical composition at the end of the day . . . so I dunno. BTW, next time please inform me (and thusly so), Twitter, with proper notice that Orange Queen is in town because I'd like to at least consider about thinking throwing some tulips from the Aldine Mail Route bridge on her royal procession from IAH.) I'm admittedly a pretty simple guy, but that sounds even too simplistic for me. Was this a book authored by Janna Jakobs? Cuz it sounds pretty familiar. Agree 100%. I believe the millennials call this a "self-own." Spoiler alert: The city is already built. Spoiler alert #2: "People just do whatever is practical." So . . . what's your plan? You've got a metro area of 7 million people already living in accommodations they call "home" and in the only neighborhood they know (you may not recognize them as "neighborhoods," but they are by definition) . . . many of these (probably approaching a full million) don't have anything near employment stability, nevermind housing stability. How're you going to convince them (or are you going to opt to simply tell them?) that the life they can afford and that they want is just not an option . . . because of . . . you heard Amsterdam was nice and a bunch of people protested and that somehow fixed everything? (Maybe a flier on the multitude of benefits from spontaneous perambulation will win these hapless rubes over?} Hey, trust me, I'd be the first person to vote for you if I were convinced you could deliver even 10% of it. (Hell, I'm getting old, I'd even go for 5% . . .) I'm all ears.

Well, we all have our neuroses, I suppose.

(Although I'm sure your conception is the preferred one these days amongst the right-wing propaganda machine . . . they're smart enough to know Fascism has a negative connotation so they have to point out that this just isn't it. The level of energy you're spending insisting it (1) involves total economic control even from its paleo stages; and (2) that this movement now can't possibly morph into something similar is telling. Fascism is authoritarian, ergo it is corrupt, ergo there are few principles other than getting and maintaining power and punishing opponents. MAGA has proven time and time again how rife for corruption it is and to imply that there is not even a real chance that it morphs into whatever this latest brand is ("Neo-Fascism" anyone?) is naive and laughable, unless you are an ideologue, of course.) Definitions of fascism - Wikipedia What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915. Historian Ian Kershaw once wrote that "trying to define 'fascism' is like trying to nail jelly to the wall".[1] In his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[23] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows: "The cult of tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement. "The rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system. "The cult of action for action's sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. "Disagreement is treason" – fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith. "Fear of difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants. "Appeal to a frustrated middle class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups. "Obsession with a plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's "fear" of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also antisemitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will. "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy" because "life is permanent warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war. "Contempt for the weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate leader, who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force. "Everybody is educated to become a hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death." "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality". "Selective populism" – the people, conceived monolithically, have a common will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the voice of the people". "Newspeak" – fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning. SOUND FAMILIAR?