uncertaintraveler

Unfortunately the second one doesn't have that many data values, but you see my point. FWIW...

I agree with your basic analysis, but I think the lack of data points hurts your argument. According to your charts, from July 2004 to July 2005, the level of increase in the "average sales price per foot" for both townhomes and single-family homes appears to be very close.

Furthermore, assuming the price per square foot represents the price for the entire square footage of the lot, and not the square footage of the house, one could make the argument that townhomes are actually more desireable; hence the higher price-per-square foot number.

Memorial Park Village II are building right now. They are priced 240K & up. I have a good friend that lives in Memorial Park Village I, and she's had a really good experience with the builders and everything.

Is this the same Tremont who built the Tremont Tower?

Its very similar (same builder) to Jackson Hill Condos (Im not sure the exact name)...the exterior is totally different, but the interiors are the same (same finishes, different floorplans to be exact).

Now I'm all confused. The developer listed in the link above (which takes you to an Urban Living website) is "A & J Development is an affiliate of Rob Johnson Interests . . ."

That is not the same guy who built Jackson Hill Condos, who is Scott ______ (something another).

So is the Urban Living link involve the same project everyone on this thread is talking about or is it some other development?

Or maybe you mean to refer to the Flats at Jackson Hill???

Is this what youre talking about?

http://www.urbanliving.com/developments_de...development=215

Thank you.

Is there a website that gives details on the development? What's its name? Prices? Floorplans?

I dont believe we know where bin laden is and just arent going after him because of political reasons. No one on the Earth will convince me that the troops in the field will refrain from capturing public enemy number 1 in order to achieve some twisted political agenda, especially when thier lives are on the line.

So, um....you don't think troops are ever used as political pawns?

Personally, I think it is interesting that certain people believe a certain president used US troops as a diversion from certain issues (oh, say, domestic problems), yet the same people are generally blind to the idea that another president could be using the same troops for the same type of diversion (oh, say, domestic problems).

And, for whatever it is worth, how is it so hard to believe that troops won't refrain from capturing a certain person? How many times in US history have troops been ordered to do something in order to achieve a political agenda, regardless of whether the "something" or the reason for it was truly valid or not? I mean, good grief, the US captures, or fails to capture, certain individuals all the time simply for political and national security reasons.

Why in the world is Bin Laden still alive? It makes us look like fools!

Anyway, what are your opinions? I

What are you using for the exterior? Is it a mix of brick and hardi-plank? And do you have any floorplans available for viewing?

If you do some searching on the Houston Press website, I think you will come across an article discussing potential flooding problems and (I think...) the SCR area. It is pretty old, but still has some useful information in it.

I've been watching House Hunters International lately on HGTV and it got me thinking....how come we don't have any exceptionally well-designed, sub-1000 square foot flats in this town? I assume the reason is at least partially based on our lack of density, and I guess that, outside of New York, such development may not be financially feasible.

That being said, though, I would think there would be at least some interest for 1000 square foot (or smaller) 1 to 2 bedroom condos that are well designed and offer "european" style---preferably with concrete floors/ceilings and walls and small balconies attached. Given their small size, they'd be easy to clean and maintain, and probably be perfect for single people, transient professionals, and young couples or empty nesters looking to downsize. I mean, not everyone wants a 1,400 square foot or larger place, right?!?

So aside from my suggested explanations, anyone else know why we don't have such developments here? Or does anyone know of such a development being built?

Anyone know how to remove a mediterranean gecko from a house or how to prevent them from coming in and taking up residence?

I noticed one high up on a wall last night and tried to get it down, but it ran behind some bookcases and after spending over an hour trying to get it out I finally gave up. I didn't see any sign of it this morning, and I know that they allegedly keep bugs and other insects at bay, but the thing gives me the creeps. So much so that I switched hotels in Thailand once when one was in my room---sadly, I don't think I can do the same now and completely relocate!

I know there were orders to quiet the trains from Memorial Park. Now the trains going from Willowbend to Memorial Park do not sound horns

Well, the trains east of Memorial Park still sound their horns nonstop. There are times at 3:00 am when the blasting goes on for at least twenty minutes.

The building in that area is explosive. I looked at Camp Logan /Rice Military earlier this year. I decided against it because there was way too much density without, in my mind, adequate fire fighting stations nearby and there were lots of complaints from area residents about the trains in the middle of the night. Also with all up the mid to upscale townhomes being built there, the streets havent changed. It doesnt take a genius to figure out that all the massive amounts of building taking place there will create flooding problems if the sewer system isnt upgraded. Many of the streets still rely on ditches to take away the water.........

You are absolutely correct. There is way too much building going on on way too little land and, as I stated earlier, the trains can be incredibly annoying.

Across the street from me about 7 or 8 townhomes are going up in a space once occupied by two (very small) homes. If a fire started in one of the townhomes farthest from the street, there is no way a fire truck could get in there and, chances are, at least half of the townhomes would be damaged. Then, diagonal from me are probably another six or seven townhomes whose front doors stand no more than 5 feet away from the street---and which are built on allegedly environmentally contaminated land.

I'm not sure how all of these new developments can be built so quickly without some serious compromises in their construction---and I'm even less sure how they are all being "sold" so quickly. Its all very suspicious to me, especially when I know of at least 5 townhomes all within a block of each other that have been vacant since their construction over a year ago!

Additionally, as you mentioned, there is the potential for some serious flooding problems. Even with the initial construction that is going on, when it rains hard, small flooding is already occurring. I'm sure it will only get worse.

Call Amica. They have been quite good to me.

Don't know anything about the two companies you mentioned.

I was flipping channels on Saturday morning to find something for my daughter to be entertained with while I fixed breakfast. I saw "Dora the Explorer" was on, but it was on Univision (or Telemundo, I can't remember which). It was in Spanish, which didn't bother me--what DID bother me was that there was NO ENGLISH! At all! I was like WTF? The show's premise (the original, spoken in English) is to introduce Spanish words throughout the show. I was kinda irked that here it was on a Spanish channel and no English was being introduced to even give Spanish-speaking kids a start with it all.

Huh???? You were irked that a SPANISH station was showing a television show entirely in SPANISH? Did it ever occur to you that if a spanish-speaking kid wanted to watch an english-language show, they'd turn the television to an english-language channel? Yeesh...

Did it ever occur to you that the reason Dora is originally in english, with some spanish, is to give english-speaking kids (the kind who are brought up in lilly-white suburbia) greater exposure to spanish? And did it ever occur to you that the vast majority of spanish-speaking kids generally get plenty of exposure to english, thus negating the need for Dora to remain "true" to its original program? Again, yeesh...

Setting your water heater down from 140 to 120 degrees can save as much as $65 per year.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone's water heater to be set at 140. Anything over 120 is a pure waste of energy and, depending on the plumbing in the house, a potential safety hazard as well.

How. About. A. Link ?

See my edited post. Had some trouble getting the statute to post correctly.

Actually Red is correct:

What is the correct way of passing a cyclist on a shared road?

"If you are a bicyclist, the same traffic rules hold true for passing bicycles or other vehicles on a shared road. If you are a motorist remember that the bicycle is a vehicle too and has the right to occupy the full lane under certain conditions. You must pass on the left lane following the normal traffic rules."

Found at: http://www.publicworks.cityofhouston.gov/bikeways/faq.htm

Again, look at the Texas statute I posted above which enumerates the "certain conditions." Under most, normal conditions, bicycles do not have the right to occupy the full lane.

They may take up the entire lane. Auto drivers confuse the courtesy of bicyclists like torvald in staying to the side as not being allowed on the street. They are incorrect. Unfortunately, to be right could be to be dead, so most cyclists stay to the side anyway.

WRONG!!!!

See Tex. Trans. Code. Section 551.103. This statute states:

I'm not really answering your question here, but...

I'm pretty sure bicycles are allowed (if not mandated to be) on the street. However, if I recall correctly, they must stay on the right side of the road at all times (except when at a red-light, which is when they may move to the center of the lane), ride with the flow of traffic, and are not allowed to weave between traffic. Additionally, they must use hand signals when turning, and if riding at night, have both lighted head- and tail-lights. See, for example, http://bicycleaustin.info/laws/tx-bike.html

I only mention it because I have NEVER seen a bicycle rider follow even half of those simple rules. Nothing against the OP, and I'm sure he rides in complete accordance with the law, but bicycle rules run both ways...too many times I have seen a pack (is it called a pelleton outside of France?) of cyclists ride way beyond the two-abreast rule (especially down Allen Parkway and Waugh), which annoys me to no end.

If cyclists want respect on the roadways, then they ought to follow the law. But until they do, I'm sure cyclists can expect to receive a few more unpleasant run-ins with drivers.

Something like this perhaps ?

No...mine was 4-door and had tail-fins. Plus, the picture you posted is of a car that is far nicer than the one I had.

No picture, but mine was a gray 1974 Oldsmobile 88 with a 455 engine in it. It was 22.5 feet long---it could just barely fit in my high school parking space (which was a parallel parking space), provided I arrived before everyone else---and got a whopping 2 miles to the gallon. It looked horrible--I had gray duck tape holding the bumper on towards the end--but it was safe and, when the engine was properly warmed up, could out-run almost any car on the street.

Can someone explain to me how shutting down poor-performing schools makes sense?

Where are all the students of the closed schools going to go? Presumably to a different school, but won't that just increase a school's "density," cause overcrowding, and lower the teacher-student ratio? And won't it also increase the student's commute times so that they have to get up even earlier to catch the bus....presumably causing them to be even more likely to fall asleep in class, and consequently, fail the test....ultimately resulting in their new school being closed down as well? Anyone see a strange catch-22 pattern here?

You saying you would have "deadlocked" the jury ?

Without hearing and knowing what went on during the trial, there is no way to know what I would have decided. So I can't answer your question.

Gosh, between this and the River Oaks Theater thread, I'm shocked at the kind of people who post on this forum....maybe I was blind, or naive, or both, but I don't remember it being so hostile when I first started lurking and contributing to this forum.

I find it particularly interesting how people post sentiments as if they (i) personally know Andrea Yates, and/or (ii) were present the moment her children died. Maybe everyone who has posted here does and/or was (although, for the record, I don't know her and I wasn't there), but I find it surprising that such an allegedly well-educated, open-minded, and diverse group of individuals can apparently be so insensitive, hypocritical, judgmental, and intellectually dishonest. Not to mention horrible spellers....

All I can say is that I am thankful that I was not called to be a juror in this case.

'uncertaintraveler'

Any further discussion with you regarding land rights use is pointless. We know your position and we also have seen you demonize those who just want to save a couple of the remaining pieces of Houston's history.

I haven't demonized anyone.

I find it discouraging, but not surprising given your track record on this forum, that instead of engaging in an healthy debate on a particular subject, you choose to answer those whose opinions differ from your own with an insult and one-liners.

In any event, I'm done with this subject--it appears everyone's position on the issue is already set, including, I suppose, my own. Good luck with the petition, and I mean that in all sincerity.

Actually, you are not reading the responses carefully. No one is claiming that Weingarten should have no right to do as they please. The outpouring of responses is intended to get Weingarten to rethink whether they want to do this. Weingarten is a real estate company. They build and lease property to retailers. If their actions offend potential customers, those customers may decide to take their business elsewhere. Weingarten must decide if the new construction outweighs the offended potential customers.

Your posts suggest that non-owners are obligated to applaud anything the property owner does, or at a minimum, keep their mouths shut. There is a huge difference between government regulation of an owner's use of the property and neighbors speaking up about the intended use. No regulations exist to impede Weingarten, and no one here is advocating such. However, many of us patronize Weingarten's retailers. If Weingarten chooses to gut this historic property, we may decide to shop elsewhere. I would think they want to know that, before they make their decision.

BTW, as an owner of an 86 year old bungalow in the Heights, I am confronted with the wishes of the neighborhood on a regular basis. I am not required to keep my bungalow, but I am aware of the sentiments of my neighbors in keeping the look of the neighborhood intact, and I take that into consideration. It is called "being a good neighbor". I don't have to. I choose to. I hope Weingarten does the same.

No, I am reading the posts carefully. The overwhelming responses have not been merely requesting that Weingarten rethink what they want to do, but rather outright hostility towards their plans and possible obstructionism to prevent Weingarten's proposed actions. Trying to spin the responses as being merely "neighborly concern" is weak.

And, if I may ask, what is your definition of a "neighbor"? A person who lives adjacent to you? A person who lives a block from you? A person who lives 10 miles away from you? Or is distance irrelevant and what matters is how often they visit your property? Is a person who visits you every week your neighbor? What if they only visit once a year? At what point do you draw the line? Should a property owner have to consult, or even listen to, the wishes and desires of every person in a community, even if their connection to the owner's property is limited and tangential at best?

Edited to add: Also, Red, in skimming through another thread entitled "Save the Bungalows," at post #34, you state, "When all is said and done, I don't think it is my right to tell a land owner what to do with his lot." At post #41, in the same thread, you state, "I am not entitled to tell my neighbor what to do with his property, nor may he tell me what to do with mine." You also wrote, at post #41, that "Part of freedom and liberty is accepting the freedom and liberty of your neighbor. I am forced to live with the fact that too many of my neighbors willingly give up the liberties that were handed down to them by our forebears. I will not vote, advocate, or otherwise give away what few liberties I have left in this brainwashed country, even if that means a McMansion is built across the street...which it already has. I apologize if this post sounds political. But, I have to say, trying to save old houses by giving away our property rights sounds little different than giving away our Constitutional rights because the government said it will make me safer. Both sound suspiciously like someone telling me how to live my life..."

So, Red, where exactly do you stand on the issue of property rights, and why do the comments you posted in the "Save the Bungalows" thread not apply here???