Subdude

It just amazes me the amount of bitterness some drivers have toward bikers. Sheesh, chill out. In Texas it's not like day to day the roads are all that packed with bicycles that it seriously impedes traffic. Yes, maybe on country roads on some weekend mornings before the MS150, but that's it. Still, somehow life goes on. Once again, biking isn't necessarily just a leisure pursuit. Some of us don't have cars, so the choices are bus, walk or bike. It would be lovely if there were dedicated bike lanes everywhere, but here on planet earth there aren't, so we're all going to have to share the road.

The problem with the "why don't they use bike lanes?" argument is that bike lanes are too rare and, at least in Houston, not well maintained. Trash and broken glass accumulates in them making punctures more likely. I use a bike lane when it is clean and convenient to where I'm going, but I wouldn't make a detour to use one either. Not all riders are just out there for recreation; a lot of us may be actually trying to get somewhere.

I think the expectation is more that it will weaken the dollar.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Economist article on deb balls at the River Oaks:

My mod favorite has always been the Sheraton Lincoln. The proportions are so fine. Probably the popular vote would go the Astrodome however.

Fixed it.

Link (Reuters)

Note merged Circuit City topics.

It is, and I wouldn't pretend that. Land use disputes will always be with us; it would be na

Heh heh, I gotta agree with you. If anyone decides to write a book on kitsch architecture, the Civil Courthouse belongs on the cover!

I can't say that I have the deepest sympathy for developers that ended up losing money on a bad business decision, but if that is your concern the best outcome would be zoning or land use regulations that would make it very clear to both residents and developers what kind of buildings are acceptable. Zoning could also let land use regulations apply to ALL neighborhoods, not just the ones where the residents have the money or cojones to make a stink. A zoning process would minimize the risk on both sides. By the way, the residents didn't do anything illegal either, did they? I don't know, you'd have to ask them. Again, I wasn't arguing the merits of their dislike of the high rise, I was defending their right to try to stop it. I'm afraid I don't understand. You're OK with their fighting to protect the neighborhood but not with the outcome? Whose hypocrisy? The residents didn't make any bones about what they where trying to accomplish. It is unfortunate that lacking zoning, land use appeals can in Houston can only be made by protest. I wish that were not the case. And it is the case that poorer areas are less likely to put up a fight for any number of reasons. But that doesn't remove the right at all of the Ashby residents to protest. My point is that poorer neighborhoods would be better enabled with zoning laws, but it is silly to think that in their absence rich it is somehow wrong of rich neighborhoods to protest. You don't help one group by taking away rights from another. I'm sorry to say this, but reading over some of the posts it seems to me that some of the expectations of the residents verge on the unreal. Think of it: You own a million dollar house in one of the best neighborhoods in the city, and some developer decides he wants a high-rise behind your house. Are you going to think, "Gee, I'm really concerned that that high rise will destroy the value of my house and the quality of my neighborhood, but I better not say anything about it. After all, I'm sure the developers mean well, and if I protest they might lose money and I sure don't want that to happen. Besides, there are many people who live in poor areas and can't afford legal help, so it would be wrong of me to do so even if I can afford it. On top of everything, wouldn't speaking up be selfish on my part?" Is this really how you would react? I don't think so.

I think that is what I was thinking about. There was a neon sign of a man with a suitcase.

Yes, but the residents didn't do anything wrong either. They were utilizing the means they had to protect their neighborhood. That's tough about the developers, but can we realistically always just expect residents to cave in to what developers want to do in their neighborhoods? It's certainly a valid question about whether the tower itself was appropriate. But once they decided that for whatever reasons it wasn't, the residents still had every right to protest it. Frankly I'm glad to see people stand up for something instead of letting themselves be bulldozed over. Are they supposed to feel regret because the developers lost money? Get real. It's hard on everyone, but good development requires balancing the interests of residents and developers. Sometimes it's not a pretty process, and both parties rarely are going to get everything they want. "Snotty activists"?! You sound almost bitter about it! How dare they have the temerity to complain!

HAI the website, or HAIF the forum? I'm almost sure the forum part is 7 years old now.

The residents didn't see this as a project in social awareness, or to ensure justice for poor neighborhoods, or in collective consciousness-raising, or in historic preservation. These are broader political questions. They were concerned about one building in one neighborhood, and they fought to end it, full stop. Why should they be concerned about trying to be consistent with other areas? My point is that there is nothing wrong with that. It's one thing to argue that their fears were misplaced, but quite another to say that they were wrong in acting on them. For the life of me I can't see why people get upset because the residents acted in what they saw as their own best interests. Yes, for we all know that developers wish to act responsibly at all times. At the end of the day I think they just wanted to preserve the SCALE and character of the neighborhood and not have a high-rise sticking up in the middle. Again, I think density was a side issue compared to scale, but even if it theoretically would have helped resale value, that doesn't mean they are somehow obligated to shut up and go along.

We don't have to do things the same way forever. It isn't that they are more "deserving" of protection, but they took the initiative and did something about it. Good for them. That is how we do things in Houston. There's no particular virtue in remaining silent because other neighborhoods were screwed over. That doesn't even make sense. As ever, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Wasn't there another dodgy looking motel right by the bayou on the northbound side before you got to Park Place?

As I recall few if any of the posts from the original HAIF survived. The second HAIF started as a clean slate. Jeez, I can't believe I've been hanging around here 7 years!

No, but the point is that whether or not density could "fit in", the local residents did fear that the proposal would damage the quality of the neighborhood and hurt resale values. They don't have special privileges. Anyone has the right to petition the government to fix what they think are wrongs. It just happened that these residents were more successful at it. Again, given that there is no city-wide zoning law it seems like they chose the most effective strategy. I fail to see what is so bad about this. You can't just expect everyone to roll over and play dead in situations like this.

Note Sam Malone topics merged.

I don't think NIMBYism is such a bad thing. It's only natural that people want to protect their neighborhoods. In the event, at least it appears to be a more successful strategy than pushing for a zoning ordinance would have been. Lacking a realistic shot at zoning, NIMBYism is the only way to go.

Great article, thanks for posting. There was a time when Houston was considered one of the leading cities for architecture in America.

Good news that this boondoggle is dead.

Oop, my mistake then. Thanks for checking that.