TheNiche

goto250us has a point. Blacks are no more ignorant than the rest of the voting public...which is to say, the majority of blacks are ignorant of politics and issues, as are non-blacks. The apparent differences in behavioral patterns amongst various members of Congress can be explained away through analysis of the cultural composition of their constituency.

He probably wasn't there. I've met him plenty of times at various events and know his MO pretty well. He pops in for a few minutes before folks start speaking, makes the rounds, and makes a discrete exit. If he's a speaker or is introducing a speaker, he leaves immediately after he's done and provides no opportunity for Q&A, whether formal or informal. The guy's got no class. Mayors White and Lanier make themselves approachable by others. Peter Brown approaches you, and then only on his terms.

Why would they have any beef with you? Inquiring minds want to know.

You Heights folks ought to be careful what you wish for. As Washington Avenue gets too pricey for bars and clubs, where do you think the Scene is going to gravitate to? The actual Heights is quasi-dry, and the East End or Near Northside areas aren't ripe enough just yet.

Sure. There are plenty of good indicators. All I'm saying is that if an analytical method works, then use it. And racial profiling works, so I'm gonna use it.

From the article you linked to: When I think of something that has a commanding presence, I think of Gen. George S. Patton or Superman's Fortress of Solitude or--on the road--a Dodge Ram 3500. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I want to drive anything that is described as having a "commanding presence". Seems like something big and unwieldy that imbues you with so much confidence could easily get you to do stupid and risky things. I'd much prefer something described as athletic, nimble, safe, efficient, low-maintenance, responsive, and that gives good road feedback. Perky headlights would also be nice.

I'm using Firefox.

Nope, race does matter. The race of pedestrians is a fairly good way to profile a neighborhood's transitional status as it relates to household income, educational attainment, quality of schools, the real or perceived predominance of crime, and ethnicity (i.e. culture). Race isn't the only thing that matters. Pedestrians wearing shabby clothes, gang colors, baggy clothing and bling, a business suit and tie, or what have you also communicate a number of things about a neighborhood. This is especially true useful for people that don't know how to use Census data or don't trust that 2000 Census data applies well to 2009 neighborhoods. Racial profiling is about exploiting probabilistic reasoning to your advantage. It has nothing to do hatred or an assumption that every single individual with a particular skin color acts a certain way. Also, I tend to think that people who are unwilling to move into a neighborhood with a majority population that isn't their skin color would probably be more concerned about being rejected by or intruding into that population than anything. It sort of makes sense if you consider that most hard racial lines in Houston have more to do with ethnicity than skin color. Consider the starkly different ethnic composition of Gulfton and the East End, for example.

There isn't a video, there aren't any pictures that look relevant to the topic of the thread as you described it, and there isn't the word "wind" or "turbine" in text that is getting picked up by my Ctrl-F search. Can you provide a better link?

That was a thinly-veiled use of Cronkite's death as the justification for a politically-charged article trying to link the current political and cultural environment to one that was prevalent during stagflation. Cronkite had practically nothing to do with it, except that his name and his six-word slogan were appropriated by the author as a hook to get people to read the article that otherwise wouldn't have. It worked, apparently. To be clear, I sympathize with the message being presented. But this is neither the appropriate thread or sub-forum, and the bait-and-switch of the subject matter was in poor taste.

The tennis courts, you say...

There isn't an address provided. Generally speaking, though, 77057 has good appreciation potential. The further north you go within that zip code, the better it is.

Nope, it's 0.9 miles to the sports complex, and then up to another 0.75 miles depending on where a person wants to go within the UT campus. If you don't believe me, check it out on Google Earth.

...yet we don't rank for the Standard of Living category. They explained their motivation for using this category: "The affordability of a city is critical to its sustainability—without livable wages, the advantages of green space and other environmental benefits may be priced out of reach for many." Yet, the top two cities were San Jose and San Francisco! Houston ranks #45. The way they constructed the index, it actually seems to rate cities based on the relative wealth of its population. No attempt is made to account for middle- or lower-income households that don't live in these places and thus aren't included in the data because they couldn't afford to in the first place. Another important thing to realize is that these are comparing municipalities, not metropolitan areas. Houston is ridiculously large, encompassing a disproportionately large number of the metro area's poorest residents. Seattle has Tacoma to keep it looking good.

6th Street isn't close to UT. Not even remotely walking distance. The San Antonio Riverwalk actually did require them moving the San Antonio River. The whole concept would have been impossible without a bypass channel to divert floodwaters away from the bend in the River. Similar concepts would actually be feasible in two or three locations along the Buffalo Bayou if there were adequate political will. Miami, point taken. As for New Orleans or any city that relies on perceptions of being historic, there isn't any city that is incapable of being so respected. All that has to be done is for that city to make history. And really all that means is that at era in time, a city has to be either growing very fast or be the largest city in a culturally-unique region. Houston is actually set up pretty well, if you ask me. Our skyline is a testament to a particular era, and we were growing during the 70's and early 80's, at a time when most of the rest of the country was stagnant. That legacy isn't fully appreciated today because the buildings are still too new. Give it time. But as for a cultural component like New Orleans has, yeah, we're pretty much screwed. Houston's PR folks try to leverage the rodeo, but Fort Worth will always be Cow Town USA. And they aren't willing to leverage our oil-soaked past because they're too busy touting our economic diversification to business interests. Denver probably isn't actually a very good comparison to Houston, either, because Denver receives a lot of tourist traffic that stays there for a day or two en route to or from the mountains for skiing. Is that what we want, to be a respected tourist destination? Personally, I think that we need to focus on maximally leverage our strengths--and they are many.

I like the earth-shaking rumble of a train that's passing at a good clip. Just not the horns.

They are active, just very lightly used. There is a rail yard at the terminus of those tracks that is still used to store extra rolling stock. You can see for yourself that there is still rolling stock in that yard either by driving by it, hiking the trails on the south side of the Buffalo Bayou, or browsing Google Earth. There are also spurs that are still well-maintained that wind around and still serve a few industrial firms, and the spurs run almost all the way to Lockwood. Hefty taxes get paid on all of these tracks, and if they weren't being utilized, they would be abandoned and removed to get out from under the tax burden.

What kind of insight do you seek?

Remarkably, I was driving down 288 around the very time that you took to the first two photos, and was myself taking photos of the fireworks with downtown in the background at the very same moment that you were on July 4th, just from a different angle. You ought to try zooming in on the fireworks, giving them about a 0.5- to 1.0-second exposure, and giving the tripod a slight tap as you press the button. I guarantee a nice result.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that they're lying, but Tricon developed a limited number of townhomes in that same community and has probably had a heck of a lot easier time selling theirs than did Waterhill. The ones you see from the bend at Dowling and Congress streets are all Waterhill's doing, not Tricon's.

I would strongly recommend that you avoid buying in this community. Waterhill developed a terrible reputation as a builder, and anything they touched should be considered tainted. Even if Tricon was the builder, you don't want to be living next to a bunch of Waterhill homes. They'll fall apart, depreciate, and probably start luring in a lesser demographic. Renting would be another matter; you can do that for as long as you'd like to. But to have a financial stake in this one is risky business. Try going just a little further down Commerce Street to the ones with galvalume siding. Or if you don't like that aesthetic, then try looking at townhomes off of Navigation, just east of Jensen. The general neighborhood is a great long-term investment, but stay away from Waterhill. If you're getting some ridiculously good deal that you just can't afford not to take, then you need to ask these questions of Tricon. I wouldn't imagine that these townhomes are set up fee simple. Figure out what the HOA dues are, where they're going, and who manages them. Ask for a set of bylaws.

Much of Washington is intersected by gridded streets. It isn't as intact as the downtown grid, but even the downtown grid has been all screwed up. Parcels along Washington Avenue are also pretty consistently sized less than a few acres at a time. If you consider that for every one square foot of traditional single-story retail space, there are usually five square feet of parking lots, and that a typical power center on 1960 is about 350,000 square feet, that'd compare to about 36,000 square feet that could be built in a single-story format at a time on the very largest parcels (approx. 5 acres) along Washington (assuming street closures could be obtained). Think about it. It is physically impossible for Washington Avenue to ever look like 1960. There's not even enough room in one place to replicate anything approaching the scale of Highland Village or the River Oaks Shopping Center--it couldn't even accommodate a traditional grocery store.

Mortgage markets are everything. It's harder to obtain a mortgage on a condo and those mortgages being issued come with higher interest rates. As a consequence, people are gravitating to houses, townhomes, or apartments, which are easily substituted for a condominium. Plus, every for-sale housing product at this price point is encountering difficulties finding jumbo loans. And certainly at this price point, houses would be competition with or without a sucky financing situation. Don't forget that the egregiously high maintenance fees (which aren't tax deductible, like interest on a mortgage) associated with condos actually suppresses the price. Were condos fee simple (like most houses), comparison of prices between houses and condos would be apples-to-apples, revealing just how much many options are available to buyers of new highrise condos. The reason I keep saying that the condo market particularly sucks is that highrise condos don't make a lot of sense to buyers as compared to substitutes for highrise condos. I am not and have never argued that the product or location is poor for 2727 Kirby as compared to other condo highrises. On the contrary, this project was planned and carried out very competently as far as I can tell. THAT is why it got built while other condo projects died on the vine. It is unfortunate that competence isn't enough to succeed in this market, IMO. If you're going to make the argument that 2727 Kirby has little direct competition and is therefore going to succeed, I'd point at Mosaic and Endeavor as other examples of unique condo highrises with no competition either in their submarket or in terms of their product offerings. Mosaic had tiny units, unlike any of the others. Endeavor had coastal views, unlike any of the others. That uniqueness could not save them.

"Past Performance Is Not an Indication of Future Results"

I'm working off of the same setup (because Vista sucks). This evening I had a couple instances where View New Posts was slow to load, but it got there...eventually. Otherwise, all quiet on the XP/Firefox front.