Jump to content

mattyt36

Full Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,280

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mattyt36

  1. mattyt36
    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).
  2. mattyt36
    “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.
  3. mattyt36
    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.
  4. mattyt36
    Here we go again!
  5. mattyt36
    “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.
  6. mattyt36
    Only in 1 direction! Maybe they can get the right half working 🤣
  7. mattyt36
    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.
  8. mattyt36
    Any way you can link to the exact statement, please?
  9. mattyt36
    The homeless problem in that area doesn’t help, but I guess it’s gotten a lot better than it was.
  10. mattyt36
    That’s my understanding too
  11. mattyt36
    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)
  12. mattyt36
    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.
  13. mattyt36
    Uh huh. If only I believed it were truly impactful, how much harder I would try!
  14. mattyt36
    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?
  15. mattyt36
    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.
  16. mattyt36
    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."
  17. mattyt36
    With the way things are going these days, it's probably Austin. 🤣
  18. mattyt36
    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.
  19. mattyt36
    Sure. But: (1) Is anyone really saying that the relationship between oil price and commercial space that existed between 2012 and 2014 still exists, COVID and work-from-home aside? (2) How much vacant Class A space exists today for a company that may needs it for "flex" space during what could very well be a temporary market upswing versus building a new tower that costs hundreds of millions of dollars? (3) COVID
  20. mattyt36
    I'm interested--do CRE professionals really believe this? I mean the whole idea of (and entirely unironically, mind you) using Exxon's announcement as potential fodder for the Chevron skyscraper when Exxon just returned half a million square feet in The Woodlands in October? I mean, c'mon. It's not like they woke up last week and were all, "Hey, now that I think about it, let's move the HQ to Houston." Needless to say, I don't see the logic. Sure it'll help the market, but there's plenty of supply, and I don't see any sort of consensus view that this price increase is sustainable and has led to any increase (yet) in E&P spending. Of course I'm not in either industry so what do I know?
  21. mattyt36
    The logic here . . . No one is saying TxDOT is financing a park or even "cares about it" to begin with. I think you're giving them too much credit if you even think they are presenting it as a way to "sell the highway project." They're doing exactly what they are chartered and legally allowed to do with the funding sources they have. More than likely they included those alternatives for the benefit of the local governmental agencies who are working towards funding them. Again, I'm not sure why this is any sort of "surprise" or any indication of ill intent or "shady dealings" on behalf of TxDOT. TxDOT has absolutely nothing to do with the cap park other than building the structure. Even if they wanted to fund it, I'm not sure they legally could. End of story. There's no there there. There's no grand conspiracy. It is what it is, people. What I am interested in is why on earth so many people think that and where it originated from. That story had to come from somewhere, however nonsensical that it is.
  22. mattyt36
    Well that's certainly material and changes everything. Thanks. (Incidentally, though, it's not a paywall, at least not for me . . . it's a free registration.) It's labeled here as a pending "Intersection Campus." https://investor.are.com/files/doc_presentation/2022/01/4Q21-Release-only.pdf
  23. mattyt36
    Well that second quote is much more promising than the first (which I guess came from Alexandria Chairman Joel Marcus On Emerging Cities, Megacampuses And 'Hucksters' (bisnow.com)). If their market outlook did change between summer 2021 and now, well the TMC must be doing something right.
  24. mattyt36
    Misunderstandings certainly do suck. Thanks for setting the record straight. From my point of view, I guess I just saw "hilarious," which then wasn't "hilarious," but rather "interesting" (but I guess it's "hilarious" again? you know, a "gag no less") and was confused. Adding to my confusion, I guess, was the additional language about "both sides" and "pearl clutching" and "buying votes" and "people not caring about the guy until now," but maybe the humor was over my head. I guess I also found it confusing that there was plenty of opportunity to say, "WHOA man, boy did that come out wrong . . . my bad," and it didn't come out until . . . now, I guess? (Or maybe some would note, as a matter of fact, that that still hasn't been explicitly said, but I dunno . . . maybe I lost it in the whole "I didn't do anything wrong"/"none of this is controversial"/"I come from family tragedy"/not sure how to describe (maybe victim complex?)-type thing. I mean, not the type of thing I say when joking, but, again, maybe it was over my head. Needless to say, it was all a bit distracting . . . but I shall emulate your good example and try harder next time.) Family tragedy is also always bad. I've been pretty lucky in that department but I still hope that if, say, a family member died from alcoholism my first instinct wouldn't be to erect a statue of Adolphus Busch to commemorate the contributions of the brewing industry across from their tombstone. Even as a "gag" or "gallows humor" (no less). Because I think that'd be kind of weird. But maybe it's a Salt Lake City kind of thing? I always heard it was a "hilarious" place.
  25. mattyt36
    Erm, thanks for the permission, boss, much appreciated!
×
×
  • Create New...