mattyt36

5 minutes ago, Luminare said:

This is why strangely at this point one should be for a recession and a dramatic move from inflation to deflation. The biggest enemy of low-income working class all the way up to upper-middle class is inflation. If one wants actual home/apartment affordability then real estate needs to plummet, inflation needs to go back to 2% at least, and I would argue into the negative. Crush demand in the market to send prices for all construction products which will make every building cheaper to build and by that make rent cheaper. No matter what anyone does right now its technically impossible to maintain any kind of "low-income" housing during an inflationary period, or when the market is red hot. No government program can fix this, no bureaucracy can fix this, and not even architects can fix this. At this point the only solution is a recession to reset prices across the board. Its bad to say, but its the truth that every knows needs to happen even though everyone is either pretending this isn't how it works or is fighting to make sure they don't get the blame for it.

Deflation an economic no bueno as secondary effects will likely be more pronounced on wages.  Wages are just not going to remain the same in a deflationary environment--it's hard enough to get producers to increase wages in an inflationary environment, so the thought that they'd leave them unchanged in a deflationary environment is pollyannish--wages are linked to the price level, certainly not perfectly and certainly not in lockstep, but they are tied very closely. 

"Crushing market demand" will result in another housing crisis--more foreclosures as mortgages go "underwater" and wipe out of a lot of middle-class wealth (sure, it may be on paper, but that's not how people think of it).

Disinflation, fine.

What Is Deflation? Why Is It Bad? – Forbes Advisor

40 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

I mean, I'm all for that hypothetical outcome. I'm just skeptical of its likelihood. I'm no more a fan of the left-urbanist strain of nimbyism than I am of any other. But Houston's record on increasing the supply of legitimately affordable housing for the bottom income quintile (citywide) to keep pace with demand - arguably the best such record in the country, mind you, which is not an altogether comforting fact - is mixed at best. Every year it gets harder for low-income people to find affordable housing, but it doesn't get any harder to be low-income.

 

We can pat ourselves on the back all we want for doing better than most other US cities in this regard, but the reality is that any public housing teardown (or online conversation thereabout) is going to spark perfectly valid anxieties among residents (and, to be candid, their teachers). 

Is it an inefficient land use? No doubt. Is it nearly as inefficient, from a public service perspective, as the thousands of acres of surface parking lots and single-use garages and literally empty lots that abound in every corner of this city? No. 

Again, I'm all for densification, and I'm all for increasing the net supply of housing in the city. But I also think there's a tendency here to be a little hasty in sweeping the sometimes devastating personal/individual effects of a project under the rug of a (often not very rigorously hypothesized) net macroeconomic win. 

Federal funding regulations are relatively watertight--I doubt they'd let any land sales to be diverted away from the Housing Authority as a condition of receiving grants to begin with.  So it's not like the funds could be used for, say, highway expansion.  (Oh, the supreme irony for people who wanted to use highway funds to convert Lofts at the Ballpark to low-income housing!)  I suppose they could just sit on the proceeds, but I am sure there are at least some performance requirements as well.

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

Selling this very valuable land could provide more funds for replacing the existing housing with more and better public housing in another location, or, as others have suggested, replaced with housing using a smaller footprint, and included within other development. Win-Win

What?!  You mean you're not just an evil capitalist trying to stick it to the people?!  Your "plan" could even include additional public housing?!  

This idea that people in rental units, public or subsidized low-income rental housing, etc., have inherent rights that somehow are superior to rights extended to every other renter or property owner is absurd.  No one who rented an apartment at the Lofts at the Ballpark seriously thought that that gave them a right to live there for the rest of their lives at some nominal annual increase in rent versus their original lease, come hell or high water, I'm not sure why people living in public housing should think the same--they already have the rent control and legal rights to reaccommodation, which is more than pretty much everyone else.

On 2/3/2023 at 10:18 AM, toxtethogrady said:

And it's already oversubscribed. Way too many people in Houston need housing.

Wow, who would've ever guessed that a below market-rate housing project would be oversubscribed?  I mean, totally logic-defying!

12 hours ago, hindesky said:

Ick (but thanks for sharing).

11 hours ago, steve1363 said:

Are you a baseball fan?  I mentioned the Yankees in reference to the Astros putting “OXY” on their uniforms.  The Yankees pinstripe home uniforms are iconic and they don’t tamper with the design.  They could pollute them with advertising but I don’t see that happening…just like their stadium remains Yankee Stadium.

You are entitled to a different opinion.  I’m a lifelong Astros fan but I’m not blind! 😂

Hmmmmmm, well, wonder what gives them the luxury to make such a "principled" decision?  The answer is eluding me, even though I think it should be rather obvious . . . 

2 hours ago, SMU1213 said:

That land is worth $200m+. They could easily sell it to a developer and require the developer to include a brand new 400 unit affordable housing tower as part of the master planned development. More affordable units that are brand new would be a positive outcome.

Regardless of whether it was "fortunate" or "unfortunate," the above is the simple reality.  The current configuration is getting more "inefficient" from a land use perspective by the day.

The proceeds could also be used to develop additional housing units elsewhere, as they have in plenty of other jurisdictions.

Even if buildings are public landmarks, it doesn't mean they have to continue to be used for the same purpose.

Below is a link from a Cite article from 1995 with a historical overview, including several proposals to sell the property going back to 1977.  Evidently Kenneth Schnitzer wanted it in the early 1980s.

https://offcite.rice.edu/2010/03/DepletedLegacy_Lang_Cite33.pdf

(Didn't they recently sell part of the land already?)

The juxtaposition of this development next to public housing is . . . interesting.  One wonders when that land will inevitably be sold.

5 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

The master plan called for consolidating A and B into one central processor.  But they seem to have abandoned that idea.

Well it wouldn't really work considering UA has an exclusive long-term lease to Terminal B (assuming they exercise the redevelopment option).  Not that HAS couldn't renegotiate (and the conceptual Terminal B program appears to have changed), but the current business deal doesn't really envision it.   

Well $50 million from Oxy for Boy Scout badges won’t hurt. 

The central terminal roadway complex is the main impediment to continued development and has shown exactly why especially over the last couple of years. Future terminal development would have to happen at a different site. 

Maybe this B redevelopment will address it. It’d actually make sense if the A redevelopment was coordinated with B for a new central west terminal, perhaps using that space west of the Marriott to eliminate the need of driving through B to get to A. 

Much improved!

Has it always been a roundabout?

27 minutes ago, august948 said:

I'd say it's more Mondrian.

Well appropriate, considering he was Dutch so well aware of the dangers of flooding.

34 minutes ago, august948 said:

They should have painted it murky brown, then.

Obviously it is in an impressionistic style

On 1/27/2023 at 7:11 PM, Ross said:

The sellers certainly like blue

Allusion to water being up to the ceiling the next time White Oak Bayou floods?  

2 hours ago, Kim Brown said:

https://sovereignballpark.com/

Well they took some license with that advertising, didn't they?

3 hours ago, TacoDog said:

SWA Green Belt plan

It's a bit more intricate than that if you look at pages 13-16 of the PDF (document pages 20-26):

https://www.centralhouston.org/filer/0/1615334642/470/ 

The plan suggested pretty major roadway modifications in Downtown, Midtown, and EaDO, probably akin to the recent Bagby Street redux:

Create a trail with a generous pedestrian path, an amenity zone, and a two-way bikeway. Paving, materials, and patterns should be high-quality and consistent to brand the trail.

In fact, Pierce was one of the key streets identified.

But thanks for posting this as it is just now clicking with me that the cap park isn't flush with the GRB (probably due to the interchanges), but rather it will be from the center of the GRB to 3 blocks north of MMP, which is much bigger than what I expected.  Should make the lots north of MMP more valuable and a logical place for additional residential development.  

3 hours ago, hindesky said:

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/sky-park-midtown-pierce-elevated-transformation/285-2ec94c7f-3147-44e5-a8d3-33577e454248

From the article:

"Baumgardner and SWA Houston are the designers behind Buffalo Bayou Park and GRB Plaza. They were tasked with figuring out options for Pierce Elevated."

My question: Tasked by whom?  As that makes a difference in how "serious" it is.

41 minutes ago, 004n063 said:

No, I live near Midtown Park. There are events there pretty much every weekend, and there are zumba classes and such pretty much every evening. Plus people doing hill sprints, playing on the playground, using the dog park, or just hanging out whenever the weather is nice. It's not Discovery Green level of bustle, but as far as neighborhood parks go, it's pretty well-used. More so than Bagby Park, I'd say.

Good to hear.

(Doesn't seem like an ideal place for hill sprints 🤣)

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

This would be a huge save. Based off all the buildings that have been saved over the past decade, I think it's safe to assume it will be restored. 

As you said, it’s all in the use of the word “conversion”—you don’t tear down something you’re going to “convert.” Seems pretty clear they limited themselves from going back to the Downtown Living Initiative approach for new construction and are focusing now only on conversion.

Perhaps a refreshed, less “rich” DLI could be launched at some point in the near future, as one would think it shouldn’t cost as much to entice additional development now that the area is much more “proven” for residential development. 

Concepts for the Sakowitz conversion will definitely be interesting to see. Hopefully we are about to start a third wave of residential construction after the 1990s Rice/loft conversion, then the DLI, now this. 🤞 

Well one can only assume (hope?) the 901 Main St would be restored to the original exterior--look at those windows!  Would make a unique place to live in.  Just will need lots of noise insulation.

Image courtesy of @Urbannizer from this thread:

2 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'm not super attached to the skypark idea, but...huh? Have you been to Midtown Park? It's definitely not neglected...

I have admittedly not been there for a while, other than driving by--it seemed very lightly used.  But maybe it is a roll of the die.

Bagby Park has turned around thanks to La Calle--could you be thinking of that?  Hopefully the LaCalle rebuild only takes two months as advertised.

3 hours ago, kennyc05 said:

Reading that article the spaceport has a lot going on than I thought. Is there any other major cities building out spaceports like Dallas Atlanta or any other Houston peer cities?

The Houston Spaceport is unique--it's intended to be more of a development/industry hub than a major center for spaceflight operations, at least not in this phase.

2 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It's fitting tbh 

Indeed.  It's certainly breathing new life into what was a long dormant employment driver for the area.

If people are so wedded to this Sky Park, wouldn't a compromise alternative be to just leave like 2-3 blocks up instead of the whole length of Pierce downtown?  Maybe integrate this shorter section into the "Green Loop" somehow?

1 hour ago, kennyc05 said:

If you build it they will come look at Post Houston 😏

But the "they" is finite, and if "they" decide to start going to one of the shiny new parks, you risk the existing infrastructure becoming "forgotten."

In general this is a frustration I have always had about Houston--very little coordinated development and they all compete against each other, I guess as a side effect of zoning.  You get a development like Post in one place, then East River a couple miles away, then the Autry Park and Regent Square stuff a couple miles away in the opposite direction.  We go from nothing to four or five similar developments in a relatively short period of time.  Downtown residential spread over Market Square, around Minute Maid, and on the south end.  It just seems it would've been more impactful if the development were centralized and radiated out. 

But I suppose I shouldn't complain.  And I hope I'm wrong.

50 minutes ago, IWantTransit555 said:

Tell me more!

Guess it's called the "Green Loop"--see https://www.centralhouston.org/filer/0/1615334642/470/, page 13 of the PDF.  I haven't seen that it is anything other than a conceptual plan, but, then again, so is the Pierce Skypark.