Subdude

Should I be keeping an eye on my grandmother, it seems that once a month I see signage of a poor old lady that owns an *insert old persons car* missing.

What's going on. Are they senile, being kidnapped?

It can arise from a number of things, but is frequently an indicator of Alzheimers disease onset.

I'm starting from behind scratch on all this. How does one know if a converter box is necessary, and where are they sold? Where do people get the coupons? If you just had regular ol' cable will it no longer work without the converter? Do channels change when all this happens?

(you can see how effectively I isolate myself from current events. )

The intersections along Houston Pavilions on the non-St-Joseph-Pkwy side of the development all have what I'm talking about, though upon closer inspection they are not exactly bike boxes but could possibly have a similar function.

Basically they put these little white divider things in a way that more clearly demarcates the parking lanes from the driving lanes, and put some trees in for further effect. As a result there's an open space in between the curb and the dividers that bikes can use as a bike box (I think).

Anyway, for whatever purpose they did it, it really does look a lot nicer and I hope to see similar landscaping around town.

I don't get it. The bike boxes are for bikes to wait in at traffic lights?

It didn't strike me as photoshopped. As editor said it seems to be the angle that focuses all the clutter.

Why does Houston have to have so many overhead power lines? It makes it look so blighted!

I suppose I've been living under a rock or something, but what is this show about?

I think this is a prank on HAIF, swamplot & similar sites. Probably by some bored employee in an architecture firm killing time before he gets laid off.

Maybe this was a good road to ride years back, but for the safety of cyclists and others, they should ride elsewhere. Moreover do they think riding on that road is fun? Do they have a deathwish? It doesn't look fun, it looks very stressful and scary.

I still haven't figured out why anyone would WANT to ride there...

Where's the sanity?

One might always suggest that drivers who are bothered by cyclists should find routes with fewer bikes and drive elsewhere. I'm sorry, but there's no real alternative to riding on roads if you are trying to do distances or, more importantly, get somewhere.

As I said I do not own a car, but I don't sit around asking that people who do drive find alternative routes because I don't like having to deal with them on the streets.

I have heard that about bicyclists sticking to the middle of the road, but I find that really hard to do and I'm not sure it is safer if it makes it harder for others to pass you. I do stick close to the curb.

The bikers on the two lane road with no shoulders really tick me off too. You want bike lanes? Start registering the bikes with the state just like we are all required to do for our motor vehicles. Pay for that registration that will help fund these bike lanes. I think you should also have to carry liability insurance on your bike in case you slam into my car and damage it or you hit me while I am walking down the street. You should also be required to have safety inspections of your bike at least once a year.

I am not against all of the bikes on the road. It just irritates me to no end when there is a group of bikers on a two lane road with no shoulder. It has happened to me on the backroads between Katy and Navasota. They will block an entire lane of a two lane road that has a speed limit of 60 MPH. Your only option is to pass them by moving over into oncoming traffic. If there are cars coming at you you have to slow down until it is safe to pass.

Most of us are at least aware enough to notice you on the road. You get so irritated at cars - yet who is going to win when a driver doesn't notice you and barrels through your group at 60 MPH? Or, when someone is coming at you in the oncoming traffic and is passing a car in your lane - and hits you head on?? It just seems that there are better, safer places for folks to ride.

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.

will obama's plans for recovery strengthen the value of a dollar?

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

The Eagles.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Economist article on deb balls at the River Oaks:

Dancing in the downturn

Jan 15th 2009 | HOUSTON

From The Economist print edition

The American tradition of debutante balls rages strong

SILK gowns were everywhere, signs of recession nowhere. At the annual debutante ball at Houston

My mod favorite has always been the Sheraton Lincoln. The proportions are so fine.

Probably the popular vote would go the Astrodome however.

Lol@title change, although there's a grammatical error that still persists.

Fixed it.

Rising sea levels threaten East Coast

Fri Jan 16, 2009 6:18pm EST

By Jasmin Melvin

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sea levels on the United States' mid-Atlantic coast are rising faster than the global average because of global warming, threatening the future of coastal communities, the Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday.

Coastal waters from New York to North Carolina have crept up by an average of 2.4 to 4.4 millimeters (0.09 to 0.17 inches) a year, compared with an average global increase of 1.7 millimeters (0.07 inches) a year, the EPA said in a report. As a result, sea levels along the East Coast rose about a foot over the past century, the EPA's report, commissioned by the Climate Change Science Program, said.

Floods will probably cause more damage in the future as higher sea levels gradually erode and wash away dunes, beaches and wetlands that serve as a protective barrier. Consequently, homes and businesses would be closer to the water's edge.

Link (Reuters)

Note merged Circuit City topics.

It's pure silliness to pretend these very same kinds of battles don't occur in cities that are zoned.

It is, and I wouldn't pretend that.

Land use disputes will always be with us; it would be na

Oh and dont forget this wonderful masterpiece too. I forget what that building is called, maybe the Harris County Civil Courthouse but anyways the one on the right that looks as if it should have been three times as tall. Its terrible looking and it looks stunted in growth and that ridiculous rotunda cap is just eeeew.

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

Sorry, but there is something wrong with it in my opinion.

I am certainly not a pro-development type of person. I generally support stronger regulatory practices for building within the city.

That said, these developers didn't do anything illegal. They purchased land in an area of town that did NOT have deed restrictions and they planned to build a very nice apartment tower (rental units) with street level retail. This project would have provided some great jobs. It would have provided nice new apartments for Rice students and faculty as well as for TMC workers. It would have provided retail/restaurant space for the neighborhood. AND, it was a fairly nice highrise to boot.

In the end, they will likely be out MILLIONS of dollars and will be stuck with an aging complex that no future developer will touch. That just isn't right in my book because these guys were following all rules and going above and beyond in terms of being open to public review. These were the good guys of development and they are getting screwed.

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?

Well, if it was just about scale, then why aren't they up in arms about the new Sunset Clinic and garage? While just a midrise of 6-8 floors, it is completely out of scale for that neighborhood. I'd also add that Sunset is a helluva lot less commercial than Bissonnet and has multi million dollar homes dotting it for blocks.

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 am all for the neighbors fighting to protect their property and neighborhood. That's the American way, or at least it should be.

I guess my beef is with the result of the protest. The truth is they shouldn't have a leg to stand on to block this development. It sets a really ugly precedent and I have no doubt that there is going to be a very costly legal battle over this one that will cost the city dearly.

I'm afraid I don't understand. You're OK with their fighting to protect the neighborhood but not with the outcome?

do you not find the hypocrisy in any of this at all? do you think if a development like this would have gone up in a poorer part of town to the neighbor's dismay that the city would bend over backwards to get it halted? the residents of southhampton used their wealth and political clout to ensure that a perfectly legal and legitimate development would never see the light of day for their own selfish (and misguided) reasons.

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 can't place that one, need more details. There was one across from the chapel, south side of bayou, nothing special about it, 60's colonial style. Not standing, now.

I especially remember the little Twin W motor hotel for it's large neon sign out front, was very nice, a man w/ luggage in his hand. Gave the illusion of motion, walking maybe. (I'm trying to remember correctly). May be wrong. It's talked about on another recent thread, probably in the East End category.

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

Sorry, but there is something wrong with it in my opinion.

I am certainly not a pro-development type of person. I generally support stronger regulatory practices for building within the city.

That said, these developers didn't do anything illegal. They purchased land in an area of town that did NOT have deed restrictions and they planned to build a very nice apartment tower (rental units) with street level retail. This project would have provided some great jobs. It would have provided nice new apartments for Rice students and faculty as well as for TMC workers. It would have provided retail/restaurant space for the neighborhood. AND, it was a fairly nice highrise to boot.

In the end, they will likely be out MILLIONS of dollars and will be stuck with an aging complex that no future developer will touch. That just isn't right in my book because these guys were following all rules and going above and beyond in terms of being open to public review. These were the good guys of development and they are getting screwed.

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.

the snotty neighborhood activists did not pose a credible threat.

"Snotty activists"?! You sound almost bitter about it! How dare they have the temerity to complain!

The old forum was hacked. I ran across a backup of the old posts a couple of years ago. I actually went looking for it over the weekend hoping I could restore the posts as a text file, if nothing else. I'll look again today.

The reason I was looking for the backup was to corroborate an e-mail I found that references HAIF existing as early as 2000, which would make HAIF eight years old. The 2001 date in the domain registration may just reflect when I transferred to a new registrar. Although the dates are supposed to remain the same when this happens (and almost always does these days), back in the wild wild west days of 1999 that may not have been the case. Or not. Who knows?

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

But that's my rub; they haven't done anything for Houston.

There was no collective effort to raise awareness city wide about the need for greater building regulations. There was no movement to get these "Tower of Terror" folks aligned with saving historic structures. Hell, they haven't even used this opportunity to start an organized effort to do what the 6th ward did to protect themselves.

Do me a favor, go to Southampton and look around. You'll find that this is a single issue event. Folks don't seem to care about the Cheyne Walks, 7,700 square foot monsters being placed on 8,000 square foot lots, or the fact that builders like Southampton, Carrera, etc... are destroying older homes at a record pace. They don't care because many of the movers and shakers that live there PROFIT off of these things.

After you take that tour, then head over to Audobon Place in Deep Montrose and see what is happening there. It's a neighborhood also filled with yard signs but over there, it isn't about stopping LEGAL developments from going forward, it's about LEGALLY changing the way all future developments will take place. There's an active movement amongst neighbors to become the second neighborhood with the protective status granted to the Old 6th Ward. That is the RIGHT way to do things.

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.

But I am sure the developers want to make money, not destroy everything that attracted them to the site in the first place.

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.

They could have backed down because they weren't against density per se, they were against density that hurts resale value. There exists density that helps, not hurts, resale value. The real question is whether or not the angry neighbors know this.

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.

This is Houston and that is the way we do things. I am not sure why the good folks of Southampton/Boulevard Oaks/Cresmere Place/etc... are any more deserving of protection that the residents of River Oaks/Avalon Place that have to put up with a much taller and more offensive neighbor like the Huntingdon Hi-Rise.

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?