dalparadise

I think you may be missing my point. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. I enjoy disagreement in this forum. In fact, I believe debate is its most valuable function. Gary was explaining how some come here to "learn". I get what he's saying, but would caution treating an Internet forum as a source of knowledge. It's better suited as a source of information and a forum for expressing opinions -- stupid, smart and otherwise. Therefor, a spot judgement of a person's post with no substance behind it ends up being counterproductive, as it often diverts the responses and requires the involved parties to then respond to the diversions. This often degenerates into name calling. I'm really not trying to be petty. I am trying to point out a mentality that I believe has taken this forum down a notch from where it once was. I think this place is most fun and most informative when people have widely differing takes and come in here to spew them wildly. The idea of writing either a textbook about Houston issues or participating in a social circle, where everyone is plastickly supportive of everyone else is less appealing to me. I know, however, that is is appealing to many here. I'm just expressing an opinion.

I know it's innocent when you do it, Gary. But, I can't really understand your (and others') love for consensus on what many here believe are debatable points. When you chime in with a bunch of smileys, you attempt to declare a measure of consensus and thus, discourage further debate on a subject. What's more, you do so without adding any substantive support of your own. It's cheap debate. I've gotten involved in discussions here about Metrorail that were inexplicably heated, but had very interesting points going back and forth. Then, someone chimed in on one side with a "great post" comment that diverted the conversation to the camp of lurkers who couldn't offer anything other than to judge the merits of the previous posts. So, it then becomes a debate between a couple of parties and groups of uninformed and, I believe disinterested in the topic "great posters", who turn the intelligent conversation into an argument based, not on facts, but on popularity or admiration of certain cliques of posters. It's forum masturbation for the same people to continually congratulate the same people on "great posts," at the expense of healthy debate. It also ends up being incredibly inefficient in getting points across. I believe the irrational need for consensus destroys healthy debate on HAIF.

Before the crash this was a great place for smart discussions about urban issues and architecture. The conversation now has degenerated into pseudo-intellectual babbling and silly one-upsmanship. I think some of the bad vibes blasted around here are completely earned. Furthermore, I hate all the "great post!" and " " comments made by people who lack either the conviction or intelligence to express their own opinions. There are "valued" members on this site who believe that dissenting opinions are "trolling," whatever that means, and who will go on for 5-10 posts to rally the rest of their clan against the person, not the opinion. I don't think they do it out of a mean spirit. I think it's actually poor communication and reasoning skills. Yeah, I act childish on here a lot. I'm a product of the new HAIF. I remember what it was before this. Now, it's more of an entertainment outlet. Some of that entertainment for me, I confess, comes in sarcasm and stirring the pot once in awhile.

There's really no way to tell. Houston measures things in feet and the conversion is not possible. It may be that we have 1000 buildings over 200 meters tall, for all we know.

This sounds incredibly stupid...but not as stupid as the hot plastic slopes in Ft. Worth. Yeah...I can "imagine the traffic". I imagine it'll be zero after three years. Maybe then they can open Fame City II in the vacant building.

I lived about three blocks from that place for about three years myself. Actually, West End (which is what this is) is doing better than Sixth Ward in terms of price appreciation. Still, this place would be in the higher end of townhouses in that area. If you plan to stay awhile -- 6-8 years or so -- that's fine. Anything less than that and it'll probably cost you to move. If you think you might move in the next 3-6 years, I'd recommend something more in the $280-$320K range in this area. The appreciation and demand is higher for those in this neighborhood and you will see returns and insulation for your value more rapidly. As for the neighborhood -- it's great. Close to everything, insulated from traffic and most undesirable elements. I don't know where the crackhead comments came from, maybe that's a Stafford world view.

Besides, why would the government invade our privacy with red light cameras? We have already willingly given them much more effective means. I'd bet everyone reading this has a microphone, tracking device, satellite transmitter and even a camera strapped to his or her person right now. In fact, you may even be lusting after even more advanced models that will make it easier to monitor your every move. I've been suspicious of cell phones forever.

The park and bayou that makes Woodland Heights so desirable also puts it within proximity to many homeless, and I-10 transients who sleep there and then come up into the neighborhood when opportunity strikes. Sorry about your stuff. I've had it happen to me before.

Okay, I'll take your word for it. Sure did look like a lot of red, though.

So what's wrong with Robertson? I watched a Dynamo game on ESPN2 the other night. It was 15% full. Seems like Robertson is able to accomodate the number of fans who want to watch this stuff.

I think WTC in Dallas is too far from downtown.

Funny, I don't really feel "called out". I stand by my assessment that Bridgeland seems more like the "master-planned community" of the two. Towne Lake seems like it will have a real "town" vibe, with a great percentage of its space as community property, if not "open space". I think Towne Lake will have much more retail, office, restaurant and waterfront development inside a smaller overall footprint than Bridgeland. Bridgeland will probably have more parks and "open space," in keeping with a more traditional master-planned community model. I don't see how this contradicts my original statement.

It's not about respect. It's about distinction. LA and San Francisco are like different worlds from one another. Dallas and Houston are just too similar. Oh, and San Diego is now practically a suburb of LA -- and yes, I've heard of them being "written off" as Southern Californians.

Just wait until the next raquetball tournament...

I've found that Lowes offers slightly better service and presents their goods better. They also maintain their garden section better than Home Depot. In the few cases where it matters, though, Home Depot generally carries better-known brands and offers slightly better prices, in my opinion.

Why would someone want to listen to Stride when there are plenty of Britney Spears CDs out there?

Gary -- just so we're clear -- I expected you to answer the questions about your band the way you did. I asked them rhetorically. I hope I didn't come off as suggesting otherwise. I suppose I either lack the vocabulary to express my opinion effectively, or this forum is overly limited in this regard...I don't know. The core for me is the concrete-as-cut-stone issue. Sure, concrete can be art. Sure his work requires a lot of intricate form work. But, in the end, it's akin to someone playing Beatles songs on a synthesizer set to sound like a guitar. Yes, it can be considered art -- I'll grant you that. Yes, it may even be appealing to many people. Is it lasting and fitting, though? Is it something that adds to your record collection? Is it meant as a tribute, or is it self-serving? Is the artist playing the synthesizer to sound like a guitar because it's easier, or because he believes it's truly the contemporary expression? Would it be more artistic to play the synthesizer and make it sound like a synthesizer( whatever that may be), instead of a guitar? Then, to further put it into your terms -- what venues do you think this synthesizer artist might play? Do you think he would sell out stadium shows, or would he more likely play dumpy clubs? Which do you consider Houston to be in this analogy?

This is where you asked me to explain myself, then chastised me for doing so. I don't think expressing a dissenting opinion is elitist. I didn't really expect you to think so either. What really surprised me was your confusion over art expressing a unique vision. Do you approach your music this way? Are you in a cover band? Do you set out to sound exactly like any other band? I understand influences, but don't the really great bands develop their own sound that is truly a product of unique vision? Isn't that what The Beatles did?

On all of this, we seem to agree.

Again, it's not the fact that it's made of concrete, it's the fact that Adickes uses concrete to mimic cut stone that cheapens it for me. In my opinion, this is a method one might use to model for a fine art sculpture, not as a final product. I'm not presuming to try to educate you (as you seem to be presuming to try to educate me), just trying to put my point across. Since when is that so bad? PS -- I know all materials are fair game in art -- I'm well aware of Wayne Gilbert's human remains, junk used in sculpture and whatever. That's not my point, though in reading back over my rants, I can see how you may have misunderstood me in your zeal to make me look stupid.

You already quoted my response. Is a concrete pedestal at the Home Depot garden center art? I stated earlier that concrete, in and of itself, isn't offensive. For instance, One Shell Plaza is a beautiful expression of concrete. Watts Towers are a unique expression of concrete, tile and steel. What's low-rent about Adickes is he attempts to "sculpt" in concrete to mimic stone, just like the makers of pedestals and columns you find in Home Depot. Had these statues been carved, people might have marveled at the artistry. As poured concrete, they will be noted, I guess, for their size, but not much else. I made the David analogy to illustrate the point of artistry over common craftsmanship. I've looked at the replica David and been impressed with its scale and its environment. I imagined what it must have been like seeing the sculpture therein the Palazzo Vecchio. I didn't marvel at the artistry of creating such a statue, even though the replica is quite impressive. It is probably a priceless treasure, itself. The actual David, however, is awe-inspiring. I wasn't expecting much more than I had seen with the replica, but it was a different world. Imagining the artist working the stone with such skill, as opposed to bending rebar and pouring concrete into forms left me speechless. To me, Adickes' work is art, in the same way that Nagel prints are art. Yes, they are appreciated by some. Yes, they can add decoration. However, they are easy to replicate and offer little distinction in their style. They don't command a sense of awe in how they were conceived or created, which is a shame, because I believe The Beatles' work does.

So, you ask me to explain why I don't like the "sculpture," then accuse me of being elitist when I do? For the record, I never said anything negative about you for liking the "sculpture". I don't understand why you're taking this personally. It's a little ironic that you describe art as being "in the eye of the beholder" and go on to declare that "undebatable," don't you think? The very nature of that statement invites debate. The idea of big Beatles statues isn't such a big problem for me -- it's the shitty concrete material choice. It's like columns or pedestals made out of concrete. They're cheap immitations of cut stone. They can be easily replicated. To me, they are craft, not art.

Why not?

Looks like the Sabine St. bridge, between Allen Parkway and Memorial to me, though they've clearly done some computer editing of the skyline.

Or any context, for that matter.