timedrifter

Just saw this. Where is Houston in this list??

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/artic...Obama-Boomtowns

It looks like they did just a Top 10 kind of thing. For all we know, Houston could've been #11 on that list.

Is this old news? Surprised I hadn't seen anything about it on HAIF yet.

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...15/daily21.html

Sounds big, potentially. Without getting into the macroeconomic issues involved, I'll say that I usually find it more convenient to drive between TX cities (speeding all the way) than fly because of airport hassles and cost (unless of course work pays, $40/bbl helps too). A high speed rail line would be a great new option to save time and productivity without paying too much more to travel.

Also, Amtrak is such an embarrassment. Acela is a such a joke! Cut 45 min. off your commute (assuming it's ever on time, which is a bold assumption) for a 50% ticket premium? Vintage 1970s technology at work, too.

I know it's not cost effective, but I guess I look at rail as sort of a national status symbol. I know there are much larger issues here like economies of scale, freight priority at switches, but so long as we're throwing around 100's of billion$, would it hurt to get rid of the K-Car rail system and buy at least a recent model?

Not everyone's getting excited because the state's gone down that road before. Back in the early 90's Texas tried to build a high-speed rail network, connecting the big 3 cities, and Southwest Airlines came in and blocked it, claiming it would've put them out of business (or something to that effect). High speed rail will never work in Texas unless American Airlines (based in Fort Worth), Continential Airlines (Houston), and Southwest Airlines (Dallas) are all fully committed to it.

For the record, I hope they get it right this time.

What are they thinking exactly here ?

How can you have future proposed line where another line is already existing?

Why does it turn south.. is that temporary or even when the full yellow line is built out, it's going to have an odd back track to it ?

If that is the shared station, how come it's not on the just recently put out modified map ?

again.. if two lines share 1/4 mile of track, why wouldnt you have a station somewhere along that shared stretch ? ...instead of 3 stations on 2 lines all within a quarter mile of each other

If I remember right, the Elgin Station on the Southeast line has now been moved to Holman so both lines could eventually have access to it. This location also fits in better with UH's campus master plan.

Alaska, Delaware, and Nevada would also fall into that category.

Alaska's got extenuating circumstances. It's not even possible to get from the largest city to the capital by car unless they leave the country. The terrain forbids it.

Everything but the guardrails.

For starters, how 288 SB gets squeezed to one side and down to two through lanes, and how the 610 EB to 288 NB connector is merged from two lanes to one. That must be expanded if the Fort Bend TW reaches S Post Oak. How about a straighter road with improved line-of-sight and geometries to speed up traffic, as well as reconfigured exits to reduce weaving. In other words, something like the 610/10 interchange, minus the rails.

The ramps on the northern side of the 288/610 interchange were designed originally with the eventual addition of express (now toll) lanes in mind. the inner of the two lanes would split off and lead to these express lanes. Since they were never built (yet), they had to merge the two lanes together until the lanes were built. Once the toll lanes are built, the inner lanes will be finally connected to them, allowing access to the toll lanes from 610 and improving traffic flow in general. Just watch and see.

I don't think that was ever a plan, just an idea and a rendering that someone came up with. Besides, why get Calatrava, when we can save money with anonymous concrete bridges?

They have to go with a Calatrava design so they can spend as much of our hard-earned money as possible. Besides, a Calatrava design is more architecturally pleasing than an anonymous concrete bridge.

Supposedly, the construction site across from the Rec will be the new Pizza Hut. They're gonna bulldoze the old one once it's complete to make way for the Calhoun Lofts/Garage project.

i know that the FAA has to approve building and crane height, but is there actually a fixed rule? i can't find anything - maybe it is a case-by-case basis?

btw - FFA = future farmers of america

I suspect that's what the deal is. The only time I've ever heard them using it was when Chase Tower was built. FAA had them knock the top 5 floors off the original design due to concerns about the building affecting flight paths in and out of Hobby Airport.

Timedrifter mentioned a preference for the Tokyo concept, so I responded to him/her. And perhaps the rendering was not exactly to scale, but my point stands. IF the building is a kilometer tall and IF it is to scale of the rendering, then that's how it would be configured. Maybe the numbers aren't going to be precise, but I think you can get the point.

This might help to clarify some of the specs for Sky City (note: 800 hectares = 2000 acres):

Also. only the bottom 5 plateaus are circular. The remaindar are more or less hexagonal. In addition, as each plateau is completed, they can be inhabited immediately. Example: if they're constructing the 7th Plateau, that means Plateaus 1-6 can be open and functioning already.

I'm not opposed to someone building a supertall skyscraper here in Houston, but a 3000 ft. straight-up office tower is just ridiculously stupid. Personally, I think if a supertall is built in Houston, they should build one like the proposed Sky City 1000 in Tokyo. It stands 1 km (about 3280 ft) tall, but doesn't look all that ridiculous. However, something like this would would have to stand on its own, outside any of the existing business districts here in Houston. The old Astroworld site would probably work though. Thoughts? Comments?

Believe it or not, but there's already a Wikipedia page for it. According to the page (believe at your own risk) the league is called the United Football League. Supposedly, teams are already in the works for Las Vegas, Mexico City, and Los Angeles, with San Antonio and Orlando suggested as possible franchise locations. Cuban supposedly has purchased one of the franchises for $30 million, reportedly for the Las Vegas team.

Something worth noting: I suspect one of the reasons the XFL failed was because of one very major oversight - no team in Texas. They MIGHT have stood a chance if they had placed a team in Texas, but we'll never know. Hopefully this new league will learn from the mistakes of the XFL and place a team in Texas, even if they have to compete over a market with the NFL.

Building a new Yankee Stadium will turn out to be one of the biggest mistakes in the history of the franchise. Mark my words. If they move out of "The House That Ruth Built" they will never win another championship again.

On the flip side, kudos to the Mets for getting rid of Shea Stadium. Too bad it still looks like it's out in the middle of nowhere.

I think probably the best option would be to give Robertson Stadium a complete modernization, right down to the bathrooms, and UH return control of the stadium (but not the parking lots) to the city. The new scoreboard Dynamo paid for is a step in the right direction. If they don't go for that, then they should definitely build across 59 from Minute Maid Park.

On a side note, this team will probably die a slow and painful death if they try to move to the suburbs after three years inside the loop. That kind of move worked for FC Dallas because neither major city is at the center of the sports activity in the region, and like it was mentioned before, DFW fans are used to driving to the suburbs for pro sports. We aren't. We are leaders, not followers. Inner-loop or bust! Say no to a suburban stadium!

Okay I graduated from U of H in 1981 and all these many years I believed that the gesture was to signify a cougar paw or U H. That was till I was reading the U of H Atheletic website and read the history and derivation of the gesture. It seems that one year in the pre SWC days U of H traveled to Austin to play the Longhorns. They lost that game and while putting Shasta back in her cage the door of the cage fell basically chopping off one of her toes. The next year or a couple of years later when UT came to Houston, U of H beat UT and someone (probably one of Shasta's keepers) came up with the idea of that game being Shasta's revenge for getting her toe chopped off in Austin. So they held up their hand with the part of one finger missing to signify Shasta's lost toe. The sign stuck and they have used it every since.

Interesting... I always heard a slightly different version than that. Here's how the story I was always told went:

One year, back in the pre-SWC days, Houston traveled to Austin to play UT. The accident which cost Shasta her toe occurred before the game as they were unloading the cage from the van (or bus, i can't remember) it was loaded in. Someone with the UT football team found out about it and told the team so, as they mercilessly pummeled us, they mocked us by flashing the sign at us the entire game. It was a loss never to be forgotten by UH fans. The sign became a rallying point, and the next time UT and UH played (here in Houston, in UH's first year of the SWC), UH fans and players flashed the sign the whole game, as UH utterly destroyed the Longhorns.

I say we keep the Aeros name, in tribute to the old WHA team (that ALMOST joined the NHL back then). The minor league Aeros are free to go elsewhere and change their names.

Also, we could broker some kind of deal with the current city of whatever team we get, where they keep team name, colors, and history. That would free us up to enter the league as the 're-launch' of the WHA Aeros after nearly 30 years.