mattyt36

Trebly Park somehow helping GreenStreet seems quite the reach to me. There seems to be an underlying thought that any new park will produce the effects of Discovery Green, but when you're talking about a park that takes up 3/4 of a parking lot, I think you'll be lucky if it has even the ho-hum effects of either of the Midtown parks. (Although, admittedly, La Calle has seemed to help Bagby Park, but I'm not sure how much you can attribute that to the park and restaurant versus the nightlife resurgence in the Gray/Dallas corridor.)

Well, that’s not surprising to me as you are a reasonable person. If you thought otherwise I am sure you would vote the other way. But, how about approaching it from this perspective? What good do you think will come from this? Abortion and people identifying as different genders have been around since the beginning of time, as inconvenient as that may sound it is a fact of life. From my perspective it just results in further “ghettoization” of poor people, which isn’t good for anyone—at best it’s just a “comfort” law for religious radicals. People will still find a way. Want to make abortion illegal after the first trimester? Fine. Don’t deputize neighbor against neighbor. Absolute imbecility. It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to see it ain’t going to work out well and any effect on behavior will be at the margins. While that may be desirable for the ideologues who are selectively blind to the first amendment, I’d argue the cost of appeasing such ignorance and hypocrisy is much higher. It is not in anyone’s interest to be a Mississippi with 30 million people, except maybe the politicians, who can run for higher office on a base of elevating the lowest common denominator. The “make no laws” approach is the way to go—no “feel good” nondiscrimination laws, no explicitly discriminatory laws. Such an approach is, at its heart, truly CONSERVATIVE. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/upshot/texas-abortion-women-data.html

Hey, I lived in California and other “blue” states, no disagreement there. But to trade Texas’s more responsible, hands-off government of the recent past for the absolute farce that it is now is making a deal with the devil. As I said, I just hope it catches up with the Texas Republican Party before it affects all of us. It’s an absolute shame and disgrace.

While I realize that some of the more simple-minded among us might find the above map telling in a kindergarten "look at all the red in the picture" kind of way, I'm not sure why any sensible Republican would look at the trends in recent elections as positive and brag about the fact that the Republican party has likely permanently lost every major urban county in the state, save perhaps Tarrant, but that's a matter of time. Not only are these the most populous counties in the state, they are also the primary drivers--by far--of economic activity and innovation. But, if you think it's great to build a party around Waco, Tyler, Abilene, Amarillo, and Lubbock--and to brag about it as some sort of accomplishment--well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Goes with the territory, so to speak. During most of my life, I've disagreed with a lot of the platform of the Texas Republican Party, but it was difficult to argue with the results. Moreover, for the most part, the old school Republicans were able to steer the party away from toxic demagoguery, men in women's restrooms and the like. Of course, there was perennial silliness, but at least there was some degree of principle, and it was more or less internally coherent. The mostly "hands off" governance lasted even into the early days of the pandemic, and, I must say, I was even surprisingly pleased how Abbott handled the summer 2020 George Floyd protests. But--either because they were afraid of primary challengers or they are tripping over each other like fools for a nonexistent chance to become the next president--it flew out the window rapidly with the 2021 legislative session. The whole of the Texas Republican Party can now be associated with the whack-o politics of Dan Patrick (a Baltimorean, mind you) and the utterly corrupt and unapologetic criminal--yet Chief Law Enforcement Officer--Ken Paxton. Not that the Texas state government has really ever been concerned about governing for all, but now all it can concern itself with is a prurient circle-jerk about transgender this, transgender that, and creating an abortion Gestapo. And, while we're at it, let's ban tenure and have the state's curriculum be written by a bunch of know-nothing mouth-breathing imbeciles cuz that's the ticket to keep the state competitive in the future and not the pathway to become Mississippi, but bigger! It's an absolute disgrace, and all true Texans should be absolutely embarrassed that we're this close to screwing the golden goose so a bunch of man-children have a chance to compete against each other for a race none of them will win in 2024. News flash: they don't give two sharts about you. And they don't even have a single shart to spare for the City of Houston or Harris County. It used to be said that Texas would naturally turn blue with the relocations from blue states like California and New York, but the truth of the matter is, the people moving here are largely self-selecting to join this nonsense. They like it. Why? God knows. I don't think they've spent even a minute on thinking where this is going to end up. But, rest assured, it'll catch up with them. I just hope it catches up with the Texas Republican Party before it catches up with the rest of us. I, for one, am not interested in cleaning up the inevitable mess.

I also feel like it’s held up extraordinarily well and is rather timeless—understated and elegant. And the fleet seems to ve pretty well maintained. Has Metro even had another scheme since its inception? I’ve seen HouTrans buses and those were God awful.

UA has flown nonstop since 2004, stopping only with COVID, but that service resumed last December as 4 times/week and is scheduled to be daily again in June. The POS-IAH nonstops are essentially the same timing as BW, but the IAH-POS nonstops leave around 1730 and arrive at 0030, so not as torturous. This link indicates the route is 3x weekly, however, but is seasonal and ending June 30, which strikes me as odd. Lots of ground time at IAH on both turns (from 0520 to 2020 on Tuesdays and 2235 to 1335 overnight Wed-Thurs), I guess because they are using same crew on outbound as inbound and the aircraft is "resting" with the crew. Caribbean Airlines To Launch Guyana-Houston Route | Routes (routesonline.com)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’d really like to know where all of this concern about the funding of the cap park downtown is coming from. It just seems a weird thing to be concerned about “organically.” Someone at some point must have linked (very transparent, responsible, and appropriate, mind you) footnotes in the TxDOT presentation and created some conspiracy theory to the equivalent that TxDOT was coming for your children by promising cap parks that they couldn’t possibly ever fund. All while not knowing what a cap park is in the first place! I agree with Houston#, downtown park is a certainty, midtown park something will def be built but it will seem like a compromise, the one that won’t be built is on the north side. Maybe if you guys are so concerned about cap parks you can put some political energy into that? Cuz the alternatives are (1) I45 as of now, or (2) some flavor of the NHHIP. There ain’t gonna be a subway or a train (BTW, you have one already, in case you hadn’t noticed) and people ain’t gonna move from Montgomery County to the City of Houston if you don’t widen the freeway … in fact it’s more than likely the opposite. And for those of you who say “No skin off my back, that means less sprawl,” I strongly advise you to sit back, screw in the bulb a little tighter, and think again.

That is a good question and always good to recap where we are from a technical/legal perspective. I don’t think the decision at this point is a TxDOT one. The EIS was approved. I think you are correct in that the approval of the EIS pertains only to the alternatives evaluated … the process wouldn’t make sense otherwise. https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/local-news/houston/005-2021.html After the approval, Harris County and others sued TxDOT. That is why we are where we are. A lot is said about this being a TxDOT project, but it’s even more a federal project from a funding perspective (and from the perspective of jurisdiction … these are all pending cases in federal court).

“I posted in an opinion in a forum and people pointed out “inconsistencies” (and that’s a generous use of the word here) ergo I’m done here.” Well I guess he either (1) wanted to say his piece without anyone commenting, or (2) wanted everyone to agree and press the like button. How fascinating this Internet contraption is.

Whoa boy, what a pretzel. Such technically specific concerns, but #1 solution is funding for cap parks. When your #1 supposed concern is about flooding and you want the freeway elevated. I want to know who is funding THIS.

Here we go again!

“Generally opposed” and “a lot more favorable” and “resiliency” mixed in with “long construction time” and then bring in “continuous pumping” to boot! Pick the tiles without buzzwords to prove you’re not a robot. Meanwhile, half the people on the forum will love, without realizing that post suggests doubling the current size of the elevated freeway. Seems pretty (suspiciously) specific.

Only in 1 direction! Maybe they can get the right half working 🤣

Because they can't, either by lack of explicit statutory authority (legal use of funding sources) or lack of support of TTC members. There's a difference. They haven't built such parks anywhere and aren't going to start now. This is nothing unique, as it is often insinuated here.

Any way you can link to the exact statement, please?

The homeless problem in that area doesn’t help, but I guess it’s gotten a lot better than it was.

That’s my understanding too

Interesting two-parter on Freakonomics. The undertone didn't seem very positive to me, but if you put into the intro a woman being interviewed saying, "I still sometimes cry myself to sleep because I live here," it's difficult to recover. I think they gave short shrift to the city of Dallas. Ft. Worth is hardly mentioned, I think maybe 3 times. Why Is Everyone Moving to Dallas? - Freakonomics How Did a Hayfield Become One of America’s Hottest Cities? - Freakonomics (about Frisco) It was all spurred by the article below: Big D Is a Big Deal | City Journal (city-journal.org)

Has anyone seen any sort of good faith attempt to try to explain the increase in crime? I'm not arguing that it hasn't increased . . . you can't argue with statistics. I'd just say from my personal perception and experience, nothing has changed . . . I, for one, feel as "safe" as I did in 2019, but maybe I'm naive. Is the violent crime mostly drug-related? Is it mostly geographically isolated? There's a lot said about repeat offenders, but it's hard for me to understand how much that is a disingenuous political strategy versus if anything has really changed at the end of the day. Like this Mattress Mack woman going on about "murder capital of the world" in the same sentence she's talking about "repeat offenders." I mean you can't argue with 38 murders (or whatever the number is), but how many of those were caused by repeat offenders who wouldn't have been let out before the County instituted bail reform? If the answer is 37 or even 5, well, then, I'd say it's pretty clear what has happened. And, when people say we need more police officers, OK that makes sense, but at the same time I don't necessarily a direct link between more police officers and a reduction in crime. Is a big problem there are not enough police officers to respond to crimes timely? Are there not enough officers to follow up, investigate, and "close cases"? Or is the thought process really that if an HPD cruiser is driving around the neighborhood every 2 hours there will be less crime . . . I mean, I guess I could see that, but when you're talking about violent crimes (which is the major concern), crimes of passion, it's just difficult for me to see the link. I'm just such a cynic when it comes to politicians and the media covering this topic and I don't know why people don't start with basic questions like this.

Uh huh. If only I believed it were truly impactful, how much harder I would try!

Appears like we’ve been caught by the same bug. (Have you been wearing your mask?) And Patient Zero in this case would be iah77. But blame me. Funny how that works. Anything of substance you wish to comment on? Cuz I’m pretty sure a fellow traveler said that Harris Health was corrupt as if, it were like a fact or something and he had the receipts. Hey it’s not like we’re talking life or death here, it’s just a matter of millage! Politics be damned! Do you have a good grip on their budget? Do you have, er, a good grip at all?

Yes. That was indeed your original statement. Well done for selectively quoting yourself. You also had 3 responses after that. No "Who knows how this will shape out" or "It's just a bit of good natured optimism," or "I sure hope so." Simple question posed do people think that if oil prices continue on their current trajectory that we would see the same level of construction spurred by the last boom. Seems like a pretty valid and central question for a forum dedicated to discussing architecture and commercial development in Houston, Texas. You more or less said yes. Three times over, mind you, bringing into this "good-natured" discussion Spindletop, the fact that "nothing has changed," that a higher oil price is better for the market (ya don't say?) and "Fun fact: Did you know that the anchor tenants for a lot of buildings downtown are energy companies?" All this "good natured optimism" aside, you seem to have some very strange aversion to seriously considering the question posed. I can only assume it's because you think that'd be "giving in." But, er, thanks for your invaluable perspective and "1+1=2" insight. I really learned a lot.

H-Town, we're talking past each other. Either that or you're selectively choosing things to respond to. I'm not sure why you think the fact that the oil and gas industry is a primary driver of commercial real estate demand in Houston is up for debate. That's absurd. Again, you either misread what I wrote or you're being deliberately obtuse. (Equally absurd is the fact that you seem to gloss over the fact that, as an example, the world has changed for Pittsburgh in the 2020s versus what it was in the 1950s and that maybe--just maybe--the same could happen here.) You've pretty much stated your belief that with oil prices at this level we'll get office development in line with historical patterns. I questioned whether that was a sound assumption. You have not come anywhere close to convincing me otherwise thus far, but maybe the consensus view in the industry is more along the lines of your thinking and I'm, as they say, talking out of my arse. I'd love to hear others' thoughts. It's fair to say HTM is on the record: "This time, it's not different."

With the way things are going these days, it's probably Austin. 🤣

Sure. But things change, don'tcha think? It's like saying there's a relationship between the price of steel and Pittsburgh's economy . . . until there isn't. The world isn't exactly bullish on the long-term role of oil as a supply of energy, is it? Which makes it arguably more difficult to attract capital, no? So why would you assume historical patterns would play out again, especially with (1) a glut of vacant space; (2) a new trend of working remotely, which, while it may be "pulled back" in the future, probably isn't going to go back to what it was before? As for flex space, I'm not using jargon. I'm saying if Chevron needs 500K square feet to accommodate relocated HQ personnel, do you think their first step will be to dust off plans from 2013? Or do you think they would be more likely to access the available space in the market? I'm just interested in the "theory of the case" here . . . as I said, I don't work in commercial real estate. I never would've expected Skanska to proceed with their development. Maybe what you're saying is that there is increased likelihood of an oil company signing an anchor tenant lease in a new building simply because the "price is right" and the 1980s era skyscrapers can't match the amenities . . . I've heard that explanation before for BofA, Texas Tower, and Skanska Disco. But that's a lot different than saying that the market will naturally add a lot more office space simply because the price of oil is $90 today.