mike1

Not cool!!! Too bad they couldn't incorporate it into whatever big box, strip center, car lot, or monster billboard development that ends up going in over there. It'll probably be tacky enough anyway, so why not add in a roller coaster?!!

Velevt, I'm confused about this statement. Are you saying that they're now going to build rail along the Katy Fwy instead of the additional toll lanes? I'm not disputing what you say, but as a Katy resident I'm keenly interested in any developments on the I-10 project.

That area doesn't look too promising based on what's already along the freeway around there. Aside from the stadium itself, it's mostly junk. By the way, does anyone know what they're going to do with the Texas Cyclone? That thing was practically a landmark!

Thanks for the info. Just a curious bit of American history that I've always wondered about but never took the opportunity to look up!

Heck...think BIGGER! We could just take out downtown and all those ugly old buildings and replace it with an airport!! ....connected by MEGA SKYWALKS!

YEAH...and connected to downtown by lots and lots of TUNNELS and automated MEGA SKY WALKS! Maybe they could build it to look like a WAL-MART too! (Sorry..couldn't resist! )

A little away from the topic but related to your post, and since you seem to have some knowledge on this subject... Do you know how it came about that West Virginia separated from Virginia? I know that it was related divisions among the counties of the state over secession during the Civil War and all, but did they follow the process that was set out in Art. IV, Sec. III? It seems like it would have been difficult to obtain the consent of the Virginia state legislature at the time.

AMEN!!!

Agreed, but where does it all end? The city really opens up a can of worms when it elects to support one group's efforts to the exclusion of someone else's. No matter how many groups they take under their umbrella, there's always going to be someone else who feels excluded. Example #1 of where this inevitably goes.

I think all of the people on this site would pay it. However, there appears to be a large number of our fellow citizens who feel they don't have live by the same rules as everybody else!

You are mostly right, as usual. All I'm saying is don't give your enemies any ammo, and poor fare collection is certainly one very big bullet as far as those opposed to Metro are concerned. As for the talk show hosts, this is still a very conservative town and I think they have more influence than many would care to admit. People such as Tom Delay and Paul Bettencourt wouldn't appear on those shows on an almost weekly basis if they didn't think they were reaching someone. They even managed to turn a local city council election in Pearland on the issue of property tax appraisals. Heck, one of their hosts, Dan Patrick, is mounting a formidable campaign for state senate in the district where I live! Also, elections might not be on the horizon for Metro, but look at how the politicians were able to bastardize the plan that the people did vote for by replacing most of the proposed rail lines with questionable BRT lanes.

You'd think that with as much opposition to any type of mass transit as exists in this town, Metro would be obsessive about collecting every possible cent they could in fares. As long as Metro Rail is nowhere close to being financially self-sufficient, critics of the system will have a reason to attack the concept, campaign against future funding for line extensions, and generally make life hell for Metro. Just listen to KSEV or KPRC when any of their local hosts get going on this issue! Metro needs to be doing everything possible to silence its critics, and ensuring that every rider pays the fare is a no-brainer!

As someone pointed out in another topic, the image of downtown Houston, at least, was taken sometime before Toyota Center and the Hilton Hotel, probably around 2002. Given that many of these Google images aren't exactly recent, it seems like kind of a long shot to put a big poster on your roof and wait for a satellite to fly over sometime (you don't know when) and snap an image of it. Then you've got to hope some uber-nerd customer will spend enough time perusing through the Google site that they actually run across the image of your store among the millions of square miles of satellite imagery. There's got to be a better use of an advertising budget! I don't see this becoming more than just a novelty anytime soon.

According to the searches I just did on this, BRT is supposed to have some type of dedicated bus lane similar to a light rail track so that the bus avoids being stuck in traffic. However, knowing the mindset in this town, it won't take long for someone to come up with the bright idea of turning the BRT lanes into regular HOV lanes so that they can make an extra buck or two letting single passenger cars use the system. In the end, the buses will end up caught in the same traffic as the rest of us. This plan could be workable if (and this is a very big "IF") the execution isn't a typical Houston half-a**ed effort.

Here's some information from a site that promotes BRT. Don't know what to think about this... http://www.gobrt.org/whatis.html

Perhaps in 100 years we will all look back with nostalgia at all of the old Home Depot and Wal-Mart buildings. Those things will be worth preserving then if the people of that time decide to value them that way. Only time will tell what is worth preserving and what is not. You mention the cost of 19th century buildings, and I would suggest that the cost is a function of demand and demand is a function of value. Those buildings are expensive precisely because a large enough portion of the population values them. The demand marketplace is what gives them their value. From an economic standpoint, that alone is a good enough reason to preserve them. Of course, I also believe that there are other reasons, such as a respect for the country's history and a desire to build off of what has come before. Coming from the Northeast, I've seen too many attempts to just tear down and rebuild that have resulted in the destruction of the fabric of the community and that have led to even more flight from downtown areas to have much faith in large scale, centrally-designed "urban renewal" projects. For the record, I also don't have much respect for fakey replications and I believe that its ok for modern architecture to look and feel modern. I also believe that tunnels and other different means of transportation can be effectively used to alleviate congestion as well as add to people's comfort. I also believe that you would probably be right if efficiency were the only factor in the equation. However, the cubicles in my office are quite efficient, but that doesn't draw people to come in to work when they have a choice and don't have to be here. Maybe in 100 years, our cubicle layout will be highly prized by museums and preservation societies as a valued example of early 21st century office design! However, the idea is to build or preserve something that will serve as a draw to people right now, causing them to want to come downtown, spend money, and foster further economic growth right now. Wal-Mart retail and office warehouses are good at what they are designed to do, but they just don't serve as the types of development that would lead people and to want to come downtown and spend money, at least not yet in 2006. If people value old buildings and a sense of history enough to drive up property values and foster additional development, then the city would be wise to build on those aspects of downtown that appeal to these values. The key is to create development that suits the specific area, and just because the Wal-Mart down the street from me is packed with shoppers doesn't mean that those same shoppers will drive 30 miles to downtown for the same shopping experience, especially since convenience and efficiency is part of what makes those retailers so successful to the markets they serve. That being said, I do think some type of open market as you advocate wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea....

I lived out in San Diego for a few years and was always impressed with Horton Plaza. Of course, almost all of the malls in Southern California are outside, sometimes constructed in a park-like setting. I'm glad to see that at least from the plans, the new Pavillions will look a lot like Horton. Too bad they couldn't take out the skylights and walls to make The Park Shops into more of an outdoor plaza as well. It would certainly be more integrated into surrounding area. Weather might be an issue, though. Check out this picture on this link: http://www.photohome.com/photos/california...on-plaza-1.html

Agreed. From the outside, the building feel like a fortress instead of a retail center. It feels as if they want to keep people out instead of inviting them in to shop! Not very inviting.

A giant version of Wal-Mart downtown might be more efficient, but it would also be very depressing. It would be a free market version of those monolithic structures they used to envision in Communist countries. Or Albert Speer's vision for Nazi Germany. As a fan history and of older architecture, I

That's for sure. Just thinking in fantasy terms since this is a fantasy topic... Gotta work with what we have, though...

Good points. I was thinking of somehow trying to promote more existing restaurants and retail to move to street level, as the most common complaint against the tunnels is that they pull business from street level, turning downtown into a dead zone. Personally, I like having the tunnels, but I don't necessarily need all of the retail to be down there and would gladly walk to street level to visit my favorite shops and restaurants. As you point out, some areas already do this well, but it would be nice to encourage it on a larger scale. Areas such as Bayou Place and the McKinney Street Garage should serve as models for the entire system. At least it would pacify some of the most vocal complaints about the tunnel system while maintaining the benefits that it provides. I just don't know how you would encourage more developers to pursue such alternatives on a larger scale short of regulating where certain types of development could be placed in the system.

I kind of like one idea mentioned when this topic came up with regard to the proposed underground parking garage. Tunnels could be built that would enable people to get from point A to point B in a hurry, but then shops and amenities could be built at street level so that pedestrian activity would also be drawn up to the surface as well. Whether or not to have tunnels may not be an either/or issue, but rather a matter of combining ideas to their best effect. If developments were built with activity at street level but then connected by tunnels below the surface, it might even promote pedestrian activity by increasing draw from a wider area of downtown. People who might not otherwise make the walk because its too far/hot/humid or whatever, might be willing to take the tunnels and then come up to the surface in the area of their favorite shop or restaurant. Those who like street level could continue to walk on street level while also being assured that there's plenty of excitement out on the streets. It might require zoning to make something like that happen, but since we're talking fantasy and all...

Don't know what the problem is with these photos. Let's try again! According to the site, these were taken in 1944:

I'm sure they'll clean it up so that it looks pretty for the Super Bowl, but that entire region's problems go much deeper than the aesthetic. I grew up in the Great Lakes and it's sad to see the decline of great industrial cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo. Houston kind of reminds me of some of those places in its dependence on a single industry. Just like Detroit once depended on autos, we depend on petroleum. I hope we can avoid their fate. I also really love the historic architecture of those areas and I hope it doesn't all fall victim to "urban renewal."

Thought these color photograps from the 1930s and '40s would make a nice contrast. The city actually looks new and clean in the pictures of that era. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/f?fsaa...mp/~ammem_FOUF: Very sad. Makes one wonder about Houston's own future... Update: I can't seem to get the old link to work anymore, so go here instead if you are having problems: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?amme...D(COLLID+fsac))