Reefmonkey

On 8/16/2020 at 1:45 PM, zaphod said:

Just a thought here, if those Target stores opened in 1976 that would have made them some of the earliest in the chain outside of their first locations in Minnesota, right? I don't think Targets became especially prevalent nationwide until the late 1980s or early 1990s, right?

According to Target's website, their first expansion out of Minnesota happened in 1968, and Houston was one of the cities for this initial expansion:

1968

Updating the Bullseye

In the late 1960s, Target expands across the country to the metro areas of St. Louis, Dallas and Houston.

https://corporate.target.com/about/purpose-history/Target-through-the-years

I've heard a rumor that North Oaks Cinema hosted a regular midnight showing of The Rocky Horror Picture Show back in the 80s. Does anyone know if this is true?

On 5/21/2020 at 3:06 PM, BruceT said:

 

I group in this area and went to Labay Jr High and Langham Creek HS. I was always fascinated with the history of the area and recently found a case study with tons of info with all the families who settled in the area. Speaks about German farmers who committed suicide as well as Groeschke family members. Awesome read...enjoy!!!!  http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/3049 

Interesting paper. It looks like only three suicides according to page 60, and the paper only gives info on two: George Groschke, who was 72 years old and distraught over the recent death of his wife, and Rudolph Hoffmann, who had resisted the Corps of Engineers purchase. The attribution of their suicides to the dam is based on personal interviews conducted with people some 60 years after their deaths. Whether these people had firs, second, or third-hand knowledge of their deaths is unknown, and such testimony isn't super-reliable. And as my psychologist wife says, people rarely commit suicide over one thing. So probably the best that can be said is there were a couple of suicides around the time of the building of the dams that may have been influenced in part by the takeover of the land, but to assert as John Rich does that "Several of the German immigrants were so distraught over the take-over of their land for the reservoir, that they commited suicde rather than see their land and homes taken by the government" is probably to overstate things.

Absolutely parents and children have rights and should avail themselves of the processes to assert those rights. But there are affluent parents who are abusing those processes to coerce schools into providing services their children don't qualify for, in order to give their already-priviledged children more advantages. In the wake of last year's college admissions cheating scandal, is this so hard to believe? Autism is the new hip label, and it and ADHD come with all sorts of accomodations, including on SAT and ACT tests. When a parent threatens to go to due process because testing found their child didn't qualify, the district has two options: fight them in due process, which might end up going to federal court, and cost the district hundreds of thousands of dollars, or cave in and give those services, which would cost tens of thousands over time instead. Usually districts choose the latter, which is cheaper, but sometimes do fight, to prevent precedents from being established, and usually get vilified for it, whether they win or lose. And which ever way the school goes, the process takes away money that is needed for truly needy kids.

I'm not saying that all or even most kids in special ed are there illegitimately, to the contrary, but even with true disabilities, a lot of times parents have unrealistic expectations of the kind of services schools should provide, they may be misinformed about what are appropriate interventions for their child's disabilities. They may also expect a Cadillac when schools are only required to pay for a Chevrolet. Schools are often put in impossible situations, often with unfunded mandates. There are a lot of seriously mentally ill students out there, dangers to themselves and others, some so seriously ill that they require inpatient treatment costing upwards of $100,000 a year, and schools have been ordered to pay for this. Think about it, if a child has cancer, a disease that is beyond a school nurse's ability to treat, is the school on the hook for paying to send the child to MD Anderson? Then why are schools being paid to treat severe mental illnesses, diseases that are beyond a school system's ability to treat? This is the intersection between our society's dysfunctional unequal attitude towards mental illness in comparison to physical illness, and our state's dysfunctional school finance system.

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

I believe the claim they traveled overseas on Harris County taxpayers' dime is false.  It was reported at the time that Emmet used campaign funds to pay for the trip.

 Looking into it,  appears you are correct, Emmett's camp did claim the trip was paid with campaign funds.  I wonder if that's what his Harris County Republican campaign donors expected their money to be spent on? And was traveling to other countries to visit water parks what we elected him to do? Did he use personal vacation time, or was he "on the job" when he was over there? I always took a dim view of Lee Brown's overseas trips; local elected officials are elected to govern locally, they have no foreign policy role and foreign trips should be unnecessary. If an elected official wants to use their private money and their vacation time to take a vacation, and tack on a busman's holiday to see something they think might apply to their job, that's their prerogative. When they spend money other than their personal money, it's pretty obvious that's not how they see the trip.

Well, I was happy to engage in civil, mature discourse on the subject and assume good faith, but  seems like it's just too emotional an issue for some other people to approach objectively. Oh well.

On 11/24/2019 at 2:29 PM, mkultra25 said:

 

I was likewise surprised to find out that Texas Historic Landmark and National Register of Historic Places designations have to be periodically renewed. Not that it would have probably mattered in this case, as in the case of the National Register, such designations are merely honorific and do not place any restrictions on the property owners as to use, modification, development, or sale. Texas Historic Landmark designations only require consultation with the Texas Historical Commission 60 days in advance of planned changes, but about all they can do is revoke the designation if they don't like the changes. 

So is there a difference between a Texas Historic Landmark and a Texas Antiquities Landmark? If so, what is it? Because its my understanding that with a TAL designation, if you fail to get the permit from THC, they can fine you up to $1,000 and/or 30 days in jail. Though I've heard in practice they never pursue it.

There appears to be what I am sure was unintentional mischaracterization of my last post, so I will do my best to clarify now.  I did not recommend razing the Astrodome because it might get in the way of a possible future as-yet-unconceived development. What I said was:

1. Leaving the dome idle for posterity like a "rusting ship" is not reasonable. Even the dome's most ardent preservationist cheerleader, Ed Emmet, said so ("rusting ship" was his turn of phrase).

2. The public has made it clear that they don't want to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars required to rehabilitate the dome to useful life. That means private money, and private investors would want revenue that would produce a good ROI.

3. The dome's close proximity to NRG Stadium and NRG Center mean that year-round use of the dome by a private business/businesses would interfere with Texans and HLSR activity, according to Harris County Sports and Convention Corp. Executive Director Ryan Walsh. Curtailing that private business during the 6 weeks of Rodeo alone would limit a private venture's ability to make that ROI.

4. So the only way to add a business to NRG Park would be to site it away from NRG Stadium, Center, and Astrodome so there would be no interference. I'll add here that since most of the unbuilt land on NRG Park is parking lot, to make up for that, turning the Astrodome into parking space would likely be necessary to compensate for the displaced parking elsewhere. Just converting the dome to a parking structure without all the other amenities Emmett dreamed of might not cost the full $105 million, but it will still be significantly more expensive than simply razing it and putting in a flat parking, and again, the public has made it clear they don't want to spend that kind of money. So that narrows it down to spending $28 million on a parking lot.

5. There is another alternative. Instead of spending $28 million on a parking lot, $20 million of which is backfilling a giant hole, spend only $8 million and leave the hole. Turn that hole into a flood retention pond, which would help protect NRG Park and even the surrounding area from flooding, and which could be beautified with landscaping.

Imagine walking out of a Texans game, or the Livestock Show, or the Car or  Boat Shows, and instead of seeing a "rusting ship" of a vacant, idle old stadium, visitors would encounter a 9 acre lake fringed with bald cypress trees, cattails and bulrush, with great blue herons, white ibises, and roseate spoonbills wading the shoreline.  Imagine people all around the country watching Texans pregame shows on their TVs seeing that sight, how that would help to counter Houston's reputation as an ugly city that not only doesn't care about the natural environment, has no natural environment to care about.

It's about highest best use practical for that piece of property at the lowest cost. Moldering mausoleum for past memories, or vibrant natural habitat that beautifies NRG Park while also aiding in the protection of property and lives during flood events?

This is for the reasonable, intelligent people who may be following this thread.  Despite West timer’s claim that I said “the dome occupied 180 acres”, what I actually said is “keep a redundant, outdated building sitting idle on 180 acres in a part of town where large tracts of available commercial land is rare,” and that addresses an issue Harris County Sports and Convention Corp. Executive Director Ryan Walsh talked about this past November when he said “The dichotomy is that a lot of the public doesn't see where the dome sits. It’s squarely in the middle of a very well-established sports and entertainment district, right in the middle of NRG Park. That makes it very difficult for some of these great ideas we’ve had because of our contractual obligations to our existing tenants, the Rodeo and Texans. The rodeo is six weeks long. If you’ve got a store or hotel or restaurant, if you can't work something out with the rodeo, you’ve got to shut down for six weeks. I don't know any business that could shut down for six weeks and still be viable.”

The Astrodome isn’t off in a corner of the property, out of the way of the active use of the rest of the property. Its central position creates an interference. Unused, where it is, it takes up space immediately adjacent to both NRG Center and the Stadium that could better be used for the benefit of the existing active tenants and the surrounding area. As a dead monument to the past, it is not the highest and best use of the property.

On the other hand, if it were redeveloped on the spot where it exists now, its activity would interfere with the activity of the existing tenants. Therefore its position DOES impede the fullest use of the 180 acres, which was my point, and which supports the argument for demolition. Reusing the spot where the Astrodome once stood as a flood retention pond, which then could be landscaped around to add natural aesthetic beauty to NRG Park, as well as protection from flooding, would be the highest and best use of the land that wouldn't interfere with existing activity on the property, while also minimizing the demolition cost and redevelopment time, which would again minimize disruption to existing tenant activities.

All the images you post in place of actual arguments, no matter how big you make them, all the argumentum ad lapidem retorts and ipse dixit assertions you make, they don't hide the fact that you don't have a cogent argument to make, they lay that fact bare.

You can say all you want over and over that "no one voted to demolish the dome", but that doesn't change the fact that Ed Emmett, the PAC formed to promote the bond election, and numerous other pro-preservation groups spent a lot of time and money telling Harris voters that if they voted against the referendum, they would in fact be voting to demolish the Dome, and they did just that. When the author of a referendum who is also in charge of managing the Dome tells you that a vote against his referendum is a vote for demolishing the dome, and you vote against the referendum, you are in fact voting to demolish the dome. You can't counter this with any logical argument, so you don't even try, instead, you just say "it wasn't a vote to demolish the dome because I said it wasn't." Emmett said it was, and he and his people spent a chunk of change to make sure Harris voters knew that. How can I make that any clearer to you?

The dome was initially kept around to be able to tout it as another venue for a failed Olympics bid. Beyond that, Indecision and inaction, not sentiment, is what has kept the building standing vacant and un-repurposed for over 20 years. Your confidence that this won't change over the foreseeable future is based on nothing - after Harvey few thought Emmett would be ousted the very next year, but he was, and his Astrodome boondoggle after voters rejected his 2013 referendum played a part in that. And now that he is out as the champion of the Dome, your "foreseeable future" isn't worth the current ticket price to see an event in the Astrodome. And you know it. That's why you've ramped up the posturing to a fever pitch.

18 minutes ago, West Timer said:

Just because we haven't found a use for the dome by now,  that doesn't mean we NEVER will. It might take more time than YOU may be willing to give it, but that doesn't mean OTHERS have to give up trying. Even if they never find a use for the Astrodome I don't want it torn down. NOT EVERYTHING can be measured in dollars. Sentiment DOES have value. Especially in a place that doesn't have much sentiment to start with.

 

Better uses? In all likelihood, what would have once been the ground the Astrodome now stands will be a beautiful, brand new, all-purpose, highly useful parking lot. Houston has millions of those (you can now park where useless old Astroworld used to be).  But Houston does not have any structure that comes close to the uniqueness and cultural relevance as the Astrodome. Say what you want, but to me the best thing Houston has regarding it's place in the world (outside providing jobs) is that fact we just love to build buildings (our skyline is becoming a monster). So I think we should have at least ONE building that stands apart from all others. That is what the Astrodome is. 

 

In all of Houston's history I don't think we ever built anything as unique and revolutionary or anything that ever achieved the world fame that the Astrodome did in its day. I think the Dome represents Houston at its best. Yes it's old, yes it's useless. But it's worth preserving. We are not a poor city. We can afford to keep it standing until a new use can be found. But even if a practical use is never found, it still has value. I know that the Astrodome means nothing to a lot of people in Houston and even less to people who moved here from somewhere else or who don't give a crap about anything outside the perimeter of their own front lawns. But I think they are being short-sighted and cheap and forget that money isn't the only thing of value in world. Feeling good about something also has value. Home town pride has value.

 

Yankee Stadium? New York City has dozens of culturally relevant buildings. Houston does not.  Maybe a parking lot is as important to you as the world's first indoor stadium and preserving a grand scale shrine to mid-century architecture. But it's hard to imagine Houston ever building anything in the future that will ever come close to being the potential world icon that the Astrodome could become to Houston with a little love and good marketing. I know, it's not Buckingham Palace, Notre Dame Cathedral or the Eiffel Tower but it's going to be the closest thing Houston will probably ever get to it. We can't just tear it down like it never meant anything to anyone. What it represents to Houston's place in history is irreplaceable.

 

As much as I enjoy NRG stadium and Minute Maid Park, I'd rather see them torn down than the Astrodome. I'd rather the Astrodome become a dilapidated eyesore like the Roman Coliseum Ruins for the next hundred years or so. Whatever it takes as long as it's still standing because even a century from now the Astrodome will likely will still be the only thing Houston ever contributed to the elevation of world architecture and building technology. 

 

 

That was a beautiful emotional plea, but unfortunately, that's all it was. It's been over 20 years since the Dome ceased serving its original function, over 12 since it ceased serving any active function, and in that time there have been many options seriously considered, and rejected, so the implication that I am being especially impatient is ridiculous. The Pollyannish idea that somehow in some unforeseeable future maybe someone will come up with viable use for it is the same rationalization hoarders use as they turn their homes into cluttered firetraps. Which, according to the City of Houston Fire Marshal, is what the Astrodome is.

7 minutes ago, West Timer said:

Quit making up your own fake news, reefmonkey. I have no more reason to trust YOUR assessment of the dome than the county's.

Well that was unhinged. Can you actually point to anything that I asserted as fact that you can dispute the veracity of?

24 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I went through their photo gallery and did not see anything beyond a torn seat cushion and some surface rust in certain places. Sounds like the Houston Press is being a little dramatic, which is to be expected from them. The county has said numerous times that it is structurally in excellent shape and could last another 50 or 100 years. Any place that has sat vacant is going to look bad cosmetically but what counts is "the bones," as they say in real estate, and the Astrodome's bones are fine.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure I trust the county on this, this is the same county that ignored the will of the voters, and when they did, announced a $105 million plan that didn't include the cost to replace the air conditioning system, which is estimated to be in the tens of millions. It seems too much of a pet project for Emmett, who traveled overseas on Harris County taxpayers' dime to go see an abandoned zepplin terminal that had been turned into a rainforest and water park (neither of which it would make sense to do for the Astrodome), to be objective and transparent about the real condition of the Astrodome. I wouldn't put it past the county under Emmett to downplay problems with the Astrodome at all.

What were the revenue projections for the dome after the $105 million plan? I know the county has said it would cost $40 million to demolish it (and again, at this point, I wouldn't put it past the county under Emmett to have forwarded an inflated number to dissuade voters from pushing for demolition). If it is a matter of $40 million to demolish and then sell to someone who would put in something tailor-made for generating revenue for the new owner, plus tax revenue for the county, vs mid $100s millions spent shoehorning a new use into an existing structure that might be an imperfect fit for it and hamper its revenue generation potential, then the latter seems like an expensive gamble.

I'm also having a little deja vue on this whole idea of voters rejecting a bond initiative for a stadium, so the authority put forth a revised proposal that was half the cost. Look what happened to Katy ISD voters. They rejected a bond proposal that called for spending $70 on a new stadium, so the district came up with a new proposal that "only" called for spending $58 million. But wouldn't you know it, with cost overruns, the ultimate price tag of the stadium ended up being $72 million. First Emmett says we need to spend $217 million, voters reject that, so he says "okay, we'll do something that only costs $105 million" - but neglects to mention that doesn't include tens of millions more for air conditioning costs. I wonder what other "unanticipated" costs would have popped up to drive the total bill close to if not over the amount Harris County voters already rejected?

50 minutes ago, West Timer said:

...and then there's just foolish destruction.

It's in a great location, I think if it were so worth saving, we'd have a viable solution by now. It's not like it's been for lack of trying.

Maybe it's been f

12 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

It hasn't really disintegrated at all, in fact it's been somewhat spruced up. Where did you get the info that it's been disintegrating?

 

Several years ago the Houston Fire Marshal declared the Dome unsafe for human entry. Has that status changed?

https://deadspin.com/what-the-astrodome-looks-like-after-sitting-untouched-a-5899025

Quote

Houston Press went along for the tour, highly controlled because there's crumbling concrete and rusted metal everywhere

That's kind of the one thing that Emmett did that I didn't like; whether you agree with the decision or not, the Harris County voters spoke in 2013 when they voted against the bond proposal, but Emmett pretty much said "forget them, we're going to spend a lot of money on the Astrodome anyway." So I'm glad to see Hidalgo shelve that idea, but she needs to do something and not just let it continue to molder for several more years, the right thing to do is rip the bandaid off and tear the thing down. It's time to just say goodbye. The original Yankee Stadium was even more storied than the Astrodome, but NYC didn't keep it around when the built the new one. We've now built two new venues to replace the Astrodome's purpose, and it hasn't been used in at least a dozen years, and it's been sitting there disintegrating all this time. Several proposed plans to put the building to a reuse have failed to come to fruition. The site could be put to so many better uses, and in the meantime the county is paying all sorts of costs to keep it around, not to mention the lost opportunity cost of selling off the land or putting it to a revenue generating use. There's preservation, and then there's just foolish sentimentality.

On 7/21/2019 at 9:15 AM, Huy Le said:

I love Ta Hua dumpling. Just found a dumpling place named Dumpling King on Westheimer, serving dumpling, dipping ginger sauce and its menu exactly like the old Ta Hua on Post Oak. Not sure its relationship with Ta Hua

Ah, Dumpling King, when I first moved back to Houston from college in '98, I lived on Westheimer at Fondren, picked up takeout from Dumpling King all the time, I probably had everything on their menu. Can't believe it's now been 20 years (moved downtown in January 2000) since I ate there. Glad to hear they're still around.

On 5/21/2008 at 10:44 AM, Vertigo58 said:

I am pretty certain Banana Republic was in the Main section is it called I? above the ice skate rink. I think it was on second level. Had Gilligan's Island-like decor, fake palms, bamboo, etc. (No Ginger Grant though)

Even today when you go into Neiman Marcus its like walking in to Fort Knox, seriously.

Hardcore security guards every where you turn and more cameras than Candid-Camera! Yes that makes ya feel real comfortable when buying that Rolex or Cartier, Choppard jewelry. Snicker

I happened across a used book the other day, and decided to buy it, it was written by the husband and wife founders of Banana Republic back in 1986, and is called "The Banana Republic Guide to Travel and Safari Clothing". It's a little history of the founding of the company, plus highlights their various mainstay safari clothing items, in the style of their catalogs, which were works of art in the pre-Gap era when they still were safari oriented.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345334795/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

There is also a website dedicated to the Banana Republic stores of the 80s, called "Abandoned Republic":

https://www.secretfanbase.com/banana/

My nostalgia for the old Banana Republic stores led me down a rabbit hole to thinking about The Nature Company stores. They were places to buy rain sticks, fossils, CDs of New Age music, and were a destination in themselves, kind of like a Banana Republic store used to be. Each Nature Company store had a giant waterfall near the entrance, and they were all dark slate tiles, with the sounds of the rainforest and stuff like that playing on the speakers. They were bought out by the Discovery Channel in 1996, and by 2001 they had all been turned into Discovery Channel Stores, and the slate and waterfalls were all gone. I always liked Discovery Channel stores ok, but thought they were never as cool as The Nature Company. 

I distinctly remember the Galleria Discovery Channel Store circa 1998, and I think I remember the location, and I wanna say it was on Level 2 of Galleria I, had a corner location.

I can't remember if that Discovery Channel Store had been a Nature Company before in that same location, or if the Galleria even had a Nature Company (I wanna say they did, but I also went to Willowbrook and Town & Country a lot in the late 80s - early 90s, so might be remembering it from there).

Annual bump for October

On 1/3/2019 at 10:33 AM, terra002 said:

Its illegal to ride them on the sidewalk, and they max out at 17 mph. Shouldnt be much different than a bike. 

 

On 1/3/2019 at 4:14 PM, KinkaidAlum said:

Scooters are illegal on the sidewalks here in LA too but it doesn't mean I'm not having to dodge them or risk having my dog run over daily. You'd be a fool to ride those things in traffic. 

On 1/10/2019 at 1:51 PM, terra002 said:

So, just like a bike...

When people have expressed concern about scooters weaving in and out among pedestrians on sidewalks, scooter proponents here have dismissed those concerns by saying they're "just like a bike", because "its illegal to ride them on the sidewalk" (examples above).

But is it actually illegal to ride them on the sidewalk? Not according to state law, which allows them to be ridden on sidewalks, unless a municipality deems them unsafe (see the reg below). As far as I can see, the City of Houston has not passed any ordinance to make them illegal on sidewalks. I see Sec. 45-302 prohibits riding bicycles on sidewalks in a business district, and Sec. 45-16 addresses " coasters, toy vehicles or similar vehicles, " on roadways, and 45-502 addresses "minmotorbikes", and 45-18 makes it "unlawful for a minor to operate a neighborhood electric vehicle or a motor assisted scooter on any public roadway, street, alley, sidewalk or city park within the city limits," and there's 32-301 that is specific to Buffalo Bayou Park, I don't see anything anywhere else in the Houston code of ordinances that makes it unlawful for an adult to ride a motorized scooter on a sidewalk.

Quote

Sec. 551.351. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:

 

(1) "Motor-assisted scooter":

(A) means a self-propelled device with:

(i) at least two wheels in contact with the ground during operation;

(ii) a braking system capable of stopping the device under typical operating conditions;

(iii) a gas or electric motor not exceeding 40 cubic centimeters;

(iv) a deck designed to allow a person to stand or sit while operating the device; and

(v) the ability to be propelled by human power alone; and

 

(d) A person may operate a motor-assisted scooter on a path set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles or on a sidewalk. Except as otherwise provided by this section, a provision of this title applicable to the operation of a bicycle applies to the operation of a motor-assisted scooter.

 

 

Yeah, I just saw that the Ninfa's moved to the building that was recently built where the old Eatzi's used to be. Makes sense about holding off on doing anything with the 1605 location until the Post Oak Blvd Project construction is complete.

Now that Willie G's has moved into the Post Oak Hotel on the West Loop feeder, anyone know what will happen to its former location? My gut tells me, given the surrounding properties, this single-story building won't survive long before it's torn down and high rise luxury apartments or something like that is built there. HCAD hasn't been super helpful, there are four entries for 1605 Post Oak Boulevard, and only one of them shows it having a building on it. One of the non-building entries is listed as being owned by "Messina R", another by "Messina J % Landry Group," and a third by "Pirogue Management". The fourth, the only one that lists a building, is also owned by Pirogue Management.

The Messina J entry lists having been owned by Messina R in 1985 and then owned by Messina J since 1991, the Messina R entry lists having been owned by that person since 1988. Both Pirogue Management entries list that entity having owned the property since 1988.

Curiously, the only entry with a building on it lists the building having been built in 1998. I know that's not true both from personal memory, and from aerial photos showing that same building as far back as 1981. Unfortunately there is a gap in aerials between 1973, when the building wasn't there, and 1981, so I can't narrow down the actual building date.

I think I remember as a little kid in the very early 80s going to that restaurant before it was a Willie G's, it was called "Flying Tigers" or something like that (Maybe "The Hungry Tiger"?), and the inside was all WWII aviation themed, does anyone remember this place?

6 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Luminare, I was wondering when you were going to arrive with a 300 word post in which you pretentiously decide every question. We are obviously not talking about what is "legally" considered Pei's building, but whether merely having his name on it makes it worth preserving when it is not the highest and best use of some pretty valuable land and does not contribute to an urban historic district that is probably Houston's only walkable neighborhood. These, by the way, would be my reasons for razing it, not "just because I don't like it," and I think these are more than just the "values of today." I like how, as usual, you give a bunch of opinions but never commit yourself to either side of the question at hand, viz., "Should it be preserved or not?"

I tend to agree with H-Town Man here. Even if IM Pei designed it himself with some grand vision in mind, it's a completely unremarkable looking early 80s one-story commercial building with no significant Houston history to it, and it's not an efficient use of a parcel in downtown Houston in the 21st Century.

22 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

It's not so much the method of transportation as much as how people were carelessly weaving through traffic as if every driver would notice and not hit them. It also seemed like a huge fad but it was interesting to see people use them because you could literally drop it off along the sidewalk and it looked to be an efficient mode of transit for getting across the city quickly. 

That was my observation this March when I was up in Austin as well.

30 minutes ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

I'm copying this here from a post a saw on Facebook on Wienerschitznel restaurants that were open in Houston. When the chain was in Houston in the 1960's through the 1990's, their name was Der Wienerschitznel before the name changed to Wienerschitznel.

For some reason or another (I'm going to point to news reporters and journalists who aren't doing their job well, are lazy, or aren't from Houston so they only went by a press release sent to them from the franchisee bringing Wienerschitznel back to Houston), news stations and articles in Houston Chronicle, Community Impact, Houston Business Journal, and Houstonia magazine are reporting Wienerschitznel is new to Houston. That's not the case as many of us old-timers from Houston know.

Wienerschitznel has returned to Houston, opening one of many locations that will serve hot dogs in Houston. The first of these is in New Caney and that location opened Saturday.

This is a partial list of Wienerschitznel restaurants that were open in Houston.
 

Der Wienerschnitzel (Baytown) 1201 N Alexander
Der Wienerschnitzel (Galveston) 712 Seawall Blvd)
Der Wienerschnitzel (Houston) 1818 N Shepherd Dr 
Der Wienerschnitzel (Houston) 2014 Gessner Rd 
Der Wienerschnitzel (Houston) 9019 Jensen Dr 
Der Wienerschnitzel (Houston) 1303 Westheimer Rd
Der Wienerschnitzel (Houston) 7535 Bellfort Ave 
Der Wienerschnitzel (Houston) 2230 Wirt Rd
Der Wienerschnitzel (Houston) 5850 Hwy 6 N 
Der Wienerschnitzel (Pasadena) 901 E Southmore Ave
Der Wienerschnitzel (Pinehurst) 2420 Mac Arthur

 

Also there's this from an University of Houston yearbook in the 60's showing these locations
 

4510 Almeda (Houston)
3716 Farnham (Houston)
4914 Griggs Rd (Houston)
7801 Hillcroft (Houston) 
8117 Long Point Rd (Houston) 
7018 South Park Blvd (before it was renamed to Martin Luther King Jr Blvd) (Houston)

 

https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/yearb/item/18466/show/18435

 

 

Never eaten at one, how do they measure up to James Coney Island?

Here are a couple of Bobby McGee menus, probably from one of their Arizona California locations, which lasted a lot longer than in Texas.

Here's one that the source I got it from says is from 1987:

https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=menu_collection

Can't quite tell what year this one is from, but judging from the design of the menu and the prices, which are slightly higher than the 1987 menu, (along with the lack of email address or website under the corporate address), I'm guessing very early 90s?:

https://scholarsarchive.jwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1946&context=mbf_collection

FilioScotia is right, food doesn't look to be anything special at all. Interestingly, Bobby McGee's was founded in 1971, and very similar Magic Time Machine was founded in 1973, and Magic Time Machine (which still exists in San Antonio and Dallas), still serves a menu very similar to these two from 30 years ago. A lot of the prices have gone up in that time, but interestingly, shrimp scampi cost $15.99 then and now.

https://www.magictimemachine.com/assets/file/magic-time-machine-menu.pdf

2 hours ago, CaptainJilliams said:

 

I don't want to speak for @UtterlyUrban, but I think I may know what he means.

 

In the past 2-3 years since I've lived in Houston, and again, this is just my personal experience (no real way to quantify anything), I've noticed an increased aggression in panhandlers in my most recent ventures downtown. Now I'm not sure if it's just desperation, mental health issues, withdrawal from drugs or all of the above, but I've been called out by people on the streets asking if I can give them money. No conversation starters, no small talk, just straight to the point. It's uncomfortable and it's difficult when you have to navigate strategically around them as you walk through town. You could look at this situation, again, as a norm in most major cities, in fact we probably have it easy down here. But with a growing downtown population, many of whom have families, I'm sure many of them do not look favorably on the situation when those who are homeless congregate in areas of high activity (Market Square, Minute Maid Park, Main Street, etc.)

 

Also, the tent cities keep shifting locations after each city clean-up, and recently they've moved to more visible locations.

I get it, it sucks to have to deal with it on a daily basis, I remember it well. Just trying to walk to stores from my apartments down there in the early 00s I was constantly being pursued by aggressive panhandlers, and I do mean pursued, I had them shout at me from a block away, and start following me, it was spooky. I remember shopping in that Randall's in midtown when it was all shiny and new and being accosted by a panhandler in the frozen food section. When I lived in the Camden Midtown circa 2003, across from the Cadillac dealership, my view from my 2nd story balcony was of the homeless woman who wore plastic grocery bags for socks and always sat on the bench right below me. Couldn't even be free of their badgering when I was in my own apartment - one sunny Saturday afternoon I was grilling on my little hibachi out on my balcony and a homeless person (can't remember if it was her or another one) calling up to me for money. I haven't lived there in 15 years, but I do go down there a lot on weekends, park and walk around, eat at restaurants, shop, etc, and it's a lot better than it was 15 years ago. There is so much more development and activity now than there was back then, homeless people can't exist there in the concentrations they did back then, and when you get hit up by a homeless person on a busy street with a lot of other normal people, and a lot of brightly lit businesses, it's a lot less threatening than when it is just you and a homeless person on the lonely street between your apartment and the nearest store. And the corridor between midtown and downtown under the Pierce Elevated back then, having to pass through a Hooverville, it was a real psychological barrier between the Fourth Ward and the First Ward. Making that area gated parking was great. Again, it sucks when you're dealng with it on a daily basis, and I understand how that is going to affect someone's perspective, and I am sure there are certain times and certain areas where things get to be more like they used to be for a while, but from a longer perspective of 20 years, it looks much better overall.