dbigtex56

Illuminated road sign on Caroline states: STARTING FRIDAY JULY 10 NEW TRAFFIC PATTERN FROM MCGOWEN TO ELGIN

That would have been really gross. Glad you didn't spit it out.

If Greyhound was going to be taken by a rebuild of I-45, so would 2016 Main, which is even closer to the right-of-way. And I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

Per The Leader News, the 1949 Sears North Shepherd branch will be closing soon, sometime between July 11th and August 30, 2020.

It was the Key Maps Store

It would be interesting to know when that portion of The Tower's tower was taken down. The theater opened February 14, 1936, and according to imdb.com "River Lady" was released in 1948, so it was up for at least 12 years. It definitely had been removed by the late 70's - probably earlier. I don't know whether it was eliminated to reduce maintenance costs or if it was an attempt to give the building a more 'modern' appearance.

There's one fewer now. Lewis Black's infamous "Starbucks at the end of the universe" has closed.

I'd forgotten about the 300. In 1962 the Fairlane had established itself as a model separate unto itself (midsize car), as opposed to being just a trim level of the standard full-size Ford. My father bought a new 1961 Fairlane, and I cannot imagine that there could have been a trim level below that one. It had the smallest 6 cylinder engine available, manual (3-on-the-tree) transmission, rubberized flooring rather than carpeting, no side moldings (like the '63 shown above), and no radio. It did have a heater and backup (reversing) lights, which many years ago were options; not sure if they came standard on the Fairlane in 1961. My dad even installed the seat belts himself as a cost-saving measure. I think it had to be special ordered because the dealers usually only sold them as utilitarian fleet vehicles.

That’s weird. They’ve been doing interior demo for a month or two. Perhaps this is a different phase of demo? (delete)

1. Montrose, the Heights 2. Cloverleaf, Galena Park Did I say that cost of land should be the only determinant? Did I even suggest that? No. I took pains to explain that's NOT what I meant. Your remarks are appropriate and applicable to places such as Vail, or Aspen, or even San Francisco, where there is a real shortage of affordable housing within commuting distance for those in the service industries. Houston? Not so much. "If this lot doesn't meet your criteria, then where would?" There's property on the East Side, and in the Astrodome/610 area that is not what I'd call "increasingly marginalized". I'm betting that the land goes for less than it does in the 77019 zip code. Further, the potential for development adjacent to the Light Rail lines has not been fully realized. These areas would take advantage of efficient transportation while also boosting ridership numbers. I think I understand your concerns. We don't want to repeat the public housing mistakes that were made in the 1950's and 60's that have had such long-term bad effects on our society. Nor do I. So let me say it one more time. We need to build affordable housing, and much more of it. It should be built in places where people would actually like to live. And it's preferable to build a greater number of units in a moderately priced area than fewer units in an expensive area.

In that case, the logical solution would be to include servants' quarters when planning luxury highrises. However, some workers may question such a paternalistic approach, as it raises concerns about their employment and housing being so closely tied. The "highrise people" you describe seem implausible, like characters in some lowbrow sit-com. However, if they existed I'm sure they'd appreciate the advice. I don't know how to make my point any clearer. I want as much affordable housing as possible, not in an inconveniently located crappy neighborhood, but not wasting money on overly expensive real estate either. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I agree. The red dot on the map on page 2 (located in the first 'o' in 'Houston') aligns exactly with that site. While a greater number of affordable housing units are desperately needed in Houston, building them in an area where luxury high-rises are springing up like mushrooms seems like an odd choice. Surely a less expensive site could be found that's conveniently located (while not in a slum or industrial area), and the money saved applied to the construction of more units.

Everyone sing along: "Science fiction....Water feature..."

The only rendering I've found for the new building is on the Fairfield Residential website's 'Coming Soon' page. It appears to be ~ 12 stories, but the rendering's pretty small. The address is listed as 1810 Main St., and the community name is pending.

Caroline St has been reduced to two lanes from McGowen St to the Pierce Elevated (?), with concrete barriers in place.

While it's possible that these locations were named 'in jest', it also seem possible that it was a way to give some distinction to an otherwise undistinguished area as a marketing tool. Think of the streets and subdivisions in Houston that incorporate words like Glen, Brae, Woods, Valley, etc. into their names, when such a topographical feature is patently absent.

Sorry, I almost forgot to address this remarkable statement. Why is doing something good for an urban neighborhood elitist? Given your proclivity for using words in novel ways, I assume that you mean something, but I cannot puzzle out what it might be. And please tell me more about the economic and social damage. I'll be interested to hear about it. I doubt the lack of a freeway entrance is going to doom Midtown's Whole Foods, and lead to Amazon's collapse. Same goes for Spec's, and Randall's. Let's hold them to the same standards that TXDot does to existing businesses, churches, schools, etc. when they're building or expanding freeways: "Get over it." I'm especially interested in the "moral hazards" I seek to create. While I'm not as frisky as I once was, this does sound intriguing. Tell me more, and don't skip any of the details. I'm a big boy. I can take it.

Please allow me to correct you on a couple of points. First of all, the word 'bailout' does not mean whatever it is you seem to think it does. The definition is "an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse." Perhaps you meant 'handout'? But that makes no sense either. No one's asking for charity, only to be treated fairly. The second half of this run-on sentence is just as problematic as the first. I'll answer to one possible interpretation of that sentence by saying that in no way do I regret living in Westmoreland. I regret that the freeway was built there, but that was hardly my error, as I was four years old at the time and living 1500 miles away. Thank you for bringing this up. I cannot imagine how we've overlooked something so apparent. Far from "creating a precedent'", abandoning underused, intrusive, poorly designed and antiquated freeways is now an accepted practice. Think of the West Side Highway in Manhattan, or Boston's Central Artery ("the other Green Monster"), or the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco. Even smaller cities have jumped on the bandwagon (the abandonment and reclamation of the Inner Loop in Rochester, NY). In every one of these cases, freeways were eliminated and the cities benefited by their absence. This "precedent setting" practice has been going on for forty years. It's time for Houston to reevaluate some of the choices (and mistakes) that were made many years ago.

And isn't that nice. And irrelevant. Pay attention: the abandonment of this section of the Spur will not create a park. Not. A. Park. What it will do is remove an awkward, ugly obstruction that should never have been built to begin with. It's the Montrose/Midtown equivalent of the Berlin Wall. Reclaiming that land will create a green space that will allow residents (especially in Westmoreland) much easier access to the Red Line, and the growing restaurant scene south of Elgin. It will provide a safer, more pleasant, and more direct connection between Elgin and W. Alabama. If you choose to dispute this, I can say with certainty that you haven't walked around this part of town very much (or, more likely, at all). I lived in Westmoreland for almost 25 years. I know this part of town VERY well, and the frustrations brought about by the intrusion of that damn highway into an urban neighborhood. There is no shame to changing your mind in light of new evidence. I hope that you will reconsider your position.

And then what? There would be fewer residents in the area. Fewer residents means less demand for park space. It would reduce the number of affordable apartments in Montrose, which are increasingly difficult to find. Even more of the people who made this neighborhood interesting to begin with will be forced out. That's some mighty expensive dirt under those apartments - and the owners know it. I can't imagine the city spending millions to buy and demolish taxable property for the sake of tiny parks that will serve a handful of people. OTOH, the greens space that will replace the Spur is land that we already own. In addition to the excellent points made by @Texasota (see above) it will also provide pedestrians a safe and enjoyable connection between Lower Westheimer/Elgin and the eastern end of W Alabama (an area which hasn't been given much love). We've grown so used to the ugliness and inconvenience caused by the Spur that it's difficult to picture the neighborhood without it. Its elimination will be a vast improvement.

Here's hoping that the repairs being made to Trinity Episcopal Church include an over-all cleaning. The old girl is in dire need of a good bath.

This being an Australian company, I wonder if the overlapping forms are a sly reference to the Sydney Opera House.

Welcome back, @ricco67

Reported that three people had been seen entering a vacant building. Would this qualify as an emergency? No, but it was time-sensitive. An hour later five police cars show up. They got on their PA system, saying that they're the police and that anyone in the building should come out immediately. Eventually two people came out. They were cuffed, and put in back seats. None of the officers actually entered the building to see if there were others inside. After about 15 minutes, the intruders were uncuffed and let go. And then the five cars pulled up next to each other, and the officers chatted with each other for well over half an hour. Maybe forty minutes. I can understand why five officers would be a good idea if they were actually going into the building, or if they otherwise would have been outnumbered. But that was not the case. I can understand why officers might need time to discuss what actions would be advisable, and that there is paperwork to attend to. But that was not the case.

Amazing how the Fondren Mansion which once seemed so massive now looks like a cute puppy at the feet of its masters.