102IAHexpress

25 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

You miss the entire point of how public transit helps development. You seem as nearsighted as some of the politicians blocking rail. 

No you miss the entire point.

I agree that public transit can help development. Actually, I ride Metro Buses often. There was a point in my life when the bus was all that i could afford to get to school and/or work. The bus increased my economic development to the point where i could eventually afford to purchase a car. However, you are nearsighted in that according to you, and many others on this forum, public transit only means light rail. Accordingly, you fail to miss the entire point that every dollar we waste on light rail is a dollar we could have used to help more Houston citizens with the bus.  

But nice deflection.

More than just helping citizens reach point a and point b you claim that the red line is more than that. It's almost like the red line is its own bull stock market that creates wealth for everyone that participates in it.  What is your data to claim that the red line created TONS of development?

How do you account for developments that would have been created anyways regardless of rail? How do you account for developments that would have been created anyways regardless of mode of public transportation? Do you adjust your conclusions for the development losses that have avoided the rail and have been created on the west side of town instead? Again, what is you data?

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Baseless how? 

Without foundation in fact.

You attribute/d not just a couple or a few developments to the redline, but TONS of developments created by the red line. Tons of developments implies an overwhelming weight of developments. What is your data to make such a claim? (short answer: you don't have any) I mean if you're correct, then lets spend some more billions on light rail because that assuredly will create tons more developments across the city.

40 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Since when have I claimed anything? Point me in that direction. 

One of your baseless insights from the Metro Rail East End/Southeast Line Downtown Construction pics and updates thread:

Quote

there have been ton's of developments created by the Red Line.

If by tons of developments you mean parking garages then I guess you're right. 

21 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

And enough about how the light rail did this and that.

You've been claiming the light rail bears no responsibility for anything and is only super awesome for a while now. I mean we get it. 

3 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

 

102IAH have you ever tried going from one end of downtown to the other during rush hour in a car and then tried it on the Red Line? 

Yup.  A car is faster. Police on the street usually halt traffic to let you exit the big garages faster during rush hour. Also, there's no panhandlers bothering me inside my car. My car is sooooooo much more convenient. 

6 hours ago, Nate99 said:

but it's my perception that the rail platform itself seems to generate a lot of the filth with people passed out and/or loitering under and next to its structure.  Few areas of downtown sidewalk get the frequent bodily fluid treatment area like this one any more, and it's not like it couldn't be cleaned up now, there are just other priorities, evidently.

I agree the platform is disgusting. Why anyone would want to build more urination platforms is beyond me.  I think the future retail we can expect at this location, if any, is a nice new 99cent store.

Ideally, though not likely, the best retail use of the space would be a car dealership. One of those tall dealerships like the one on Shepard and Greenbriar. The tall garage would be put to good use, the street level would be open to retail, and the citizens who hate waiting at their urination platform can walk in and browse at a new or used automobile that could give them the freedom and safety that the light rail does not. 

This thread would be titled better if it was called, Huge Parking Garage Built on Light Rail Line. Or Rail Fail: Huge Garage In Front of Light Rail Station. 

I thought the light rail was going to bring more commercial buildings, retail, businesses? Sad. 

From the abc 13 article:

The proposed sites were the former Humble Oil Building downtown, the Sears building at Wheeler Station, and property in East End, in addition to less specific other options.

http://abc13.com/politics/documents-reveal-what-was-in-houstons-failed-amazon-bid/2988726/

So most of the proposed Houston sites were on the light rail, and Amazon flat out rejected it. How many millions in tax revenue due to lost business and lost opportunities, has the stupid light rail cost Houston tax payers?

More rail is a lose lose proposition in Houston. Even if you build out rail to the extent DFW has, it will only be used by a fraction of the population, cost billions of dollars and probably increase overall traffic congestion because of it sharing the street with cars. Secondly, if your hope is improving Houston's national image (assuming you think more rail = better national image) then that will not change any either with light rail. The national media will still view Houston as a concrete jungle. Heavy rail cities consider light rail in a totally lower league.

If we must throw away billions, then lets at least build a 20th century transportation system like maglev. Problem number one will remain unsolved, however, at least the image of public transportation in Houston will make some national headlines. Maglev triangle route with three stations; downtown, med center, galleria. Or even more national media attention can be acquired via a 21st century technology like a hpyerloop. But just more light rail will fail to serve the needs of the population and still won't improve or public transportation image, nationally. 

2 hours ago, ToryGattis said:

Because of all the local passengers in the Greenspoint area (lots of low-income apartments), which slows down the route incredibly for airport travelers (few to none).  I'm talking about when they ran the express bus from the transit center downtown directly to and from IAH.

Correct about the two services. The nonstop airport route did not last very long. It failed. However, the 102 local bus service has decent ridership.  You're right about almost no airport travelers, however there a lot of airport workers who take the 102 to the airport. 

19 hours ago, HOUTEX said:

With respect to your "pluses," Houston is indeed better off for being strong in those industries, but isn't it somewhat outlandish that there's so few to note given the size of this market? Every economic forum or market outlook lunch I go to I hear the same refrain as speakers count them out on their fingers..."energy, aerospace, and medical"...as though these negate the weakness in other sectors like tech, finance or tourism. What's additionally perplexing to me is that aerospace (aka NASA) is so often spoken of as a pillar of the economy when it's job contribution is a fraction of other hard sciences...representing only 3% of the engineering jobs in town. In some respects it almost seems like "Space City" is hanging its hat on a by gone day. 

 

One thing to keep in mind is that Houston is the world leader in energy. That's a truly rare achievement. Very few cities are the world leader in any industry. Dallas has a growing banking and finance sector, but it's not the world leader. Austin has a booming tech sector but it's not the world leader. So where you see Houston being weak in other sectors you are glancing over the fact that Houston is the leader in a sector where most cities are just players in different sectors. Don't forget about cities that were former kings of an industry; Pittsburg, Detroit and how they would kill to still be a world leader in their respective sector today. Diversifying is important, however there's nothing wrong with trying to remain the leader in energy. 

I wouldn't support any policies that would cause Houston to lose its status as world leader in energy just to gain a larger market share in other industries that Houston will never be a leader in like, tech, finance or tourism. 

10 hours ago, Fortune said:

Houston, the City of Houston, the Greater Houston Partnership, Houston First, Houstons leaders should all be embarrassed that Houston didn't even make it to the top 20. I really hope that this lights a fire, because Houston really needs to get its s**t together. There are to many backwards thinkers running Houston. There is no reason the UT campus should not have moved forward in Houston, there is no reason our mass transit should not be further along than it is. We need a more diversified economy!

How exactly can Houston's leaders diversify the economy? Are you suggesting some sort of state owned/controlled industry? Hysteria aside, Houston will be just fine. Fortunately Houston's leaders are pretty rational. If you want to see a case study on how local leaders can cause a mass exodus of citizens from a region, just look at the failed polices of Chicago's mayors and alderman. 

My two cents:

Long term pluses for Houston:

Johnson Space Center. NASA really put Houston on the map. Unfortunately the previous administration ended man space exploration. However the current administration is reversing that policy. That can only be good for Houston.

Bush Airport. Not really reported much but yesterday/today IAH launched a new route to Sydney. It's currently the second longest route from the US. Cities would kill for the amount of international routes Houston has. 

Energy: Again, favorable policies on energy will only help Houston.

Health Care: Baby boomers are getting older every day. 

Port of Houston:

Etc,...I could keep going but you get the picture.

Long term challenges:

Image problem: Houston is an ugly spread out city. It just is. Houston's 600 sq miles is half of the state of rhode island. It's pretty much the worst laid out city in the world for mass public transportation. But if the image of mass transpiration is really that import then maybe Houston can spend a few billion on a vanity project. Like that maglev to Shanghai's airport that operates at a deficit, transports very few people and provides no viable market solution for travelers, yet is very "cool".

Universities: Rice is top notch, but is way too small and pumps out way too few graduates. I was surprised at how many people had never heard of Rice up here in Chicago. I know that Rice prefers to be the Princeton of the south instead of the Harvard of the south, but on a few key majors/disciplines they need to greatly expand for the betterment of the region. 

There's a Washington Post article discussing the top cities that were good matches for Amazon based on their criteria yet still left out of the top 20. The top three that were left out were Minneapolis, Baltimore and Houston. Their analysis ranked Houston's public transit/transportation and education favorably, but labor participation in tech not so favorable. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/01/19/the-big-losers-in-amazons-hq2-hunt/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_wb-hq2-840am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.79e983a21fb6

I agree about the innovation district/hub. I remember UT wanting to create one here in Houston, but UH objecting. Maybe the Governor can bring both sides together and reach a compromise. UT can support UH's College of Medicine in exchange UH can support UT's innovation hub. A win win for the city. 

22 minutes ago, ToryGattis said:

We're unfortunately out of the running :-( I never thought we had much of a chance, but I'm a little surprised we didn't make the top 20.  I'm guessing they want a lot of competition between states with incentives, and they've already got Texas in the game with Dallas and Austin.

I agree with you about their state strategy, that's the only explanation for Miami making the top 20. Also, I think the Apple announcement was a factor for announcing the top 20 today. Amazon is probably looking for cities to commit early on one company vs the other. I thought the Apple announcement would help Houston. It had the opposite affect. It made Amazon move faster and maybe even changed their strategy. 

9 minutes ago, Mr.Clean19 said:

Whoa.... I dont think apple would be as good a fit for Houston though. With our heavy industry market, we can at least provide logistics experts to Amazon. Apple would be a better fit for Austin.

True. However, Austin and other cities will have huge logistical challenges in competing for Amazon and Apple. Also, one of Amazon's 'complaints' is the potential for other tech companies to pouch their workers. Houston's chances for Amazon HQ2 just increased, again. Thank you President Trump. 

Apple just announced they are investing 350 billion in the US over the next five years, hiring 20K news jobs in the US and are planning a new campus outside of the bay area. Apple HQ2. Amazing. 

20 hours ago, htownbro said:

Well I guess Houston is still in the running for Amazon HQ2!  WE got passing grade of B- just as Austin and Dallas have as well!  This has to be a good feeling!

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2018/01/04/houston-scores-passing-grade-when-it-comes-to.html

Now that the new tax bill is law, Houston is indeed in the running. All the expensive blue states and their expensive cities cannot compete. If Houston only has to compete with other southern cities, then I will take that competition any day of the week. That being said, Atlanta is the city to beat on this one. Georgia is a good business state, Amazon has a symbiotic relationship with UPS, which is HQ'd in Atlanta, Atlanta has a growing tv and film industry that Amazon can tap into for their Prime tv content, Atlanta has the world's largest airport, two universities ranked in US News' top 35, affordable housing, etc...

Also for what it's worth, in December Amazon registered a lobbyist for the upcoming Georgia state legislative session... http://www.myajc.com/business/economy/amazon-lobbyist-registers-georgia-triggering-buzz-amid-hq2-search/AAMpJ8udbssA2igIjSQCCO/

However it ends up, Houston can be proud of their bid. Houston showed that in spite of Harvey that it is Strong and open for business. The new tax law will spur more corporations to move down south, so hopefully Houston can be in the running for those future moves when they occur. 

Every speculative or "expert" list of likely cities should be thrown out the window in light of the likelihood of the new tax law passing. Cities with high sate and local taxes are about to have their party come to an end, with homeowners now limited on how much they can deduct on their federal taxes regarding their SALT. Boston, Chicago, San Jose, San Francisco, NYC, Portland, all just got eliminated from contention. Houston's chances dramatically improved. 

58 minutes ago, MaxConcrete said:

About KBR site: Has everyone who promotes or defends this site actually given it a close inspection on the ground, and not just looked at Google maps views? I did a complete inspection including the roads in the interior of the site, and I was totally unimpressed. The east end of site is surrounded by warehouses and industrial properties. These are not quaint old red brick warehouses, but modern unattractive steel structures. The north side is mostly modern housing, not suitable for redevelopment. The neighborhood along Hirsch between the site and the East Freeway is an older, lower-income neighborhood. You get a good view of the bayou from the Hirsch and Jensen bridges, and the bayou waterside is unattractive in my opinion (it is nothing like the bayou west of downtown). Finally, the site is not convenient to the core of downtown, and also not convenient to EaDo since there are only two access points (the two bridges), and the bridges are fairly long. Even if the site were available for free to Amazon, I think it would be a nonstarter. But of course it is not free.

 

You're being too kind. The site is a dump. 

19 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Please show us sites being proposed in any city about which the same cannot be said. By definition. Amazon will be going to a site that has not been previously chosen by a relocating company.

Sure. Try all of them.

In Chicago for example there are abandoned buildings along the Chicago river that have been discussed as potential HQ2 buildings. Now, have those buildings been previously passed-over by other companies relocating? yes. However, other companies have relocated to the area and relocated to different abandoned buildings along the Chicago river. 

For example, If a company ignores a site in downtown Houston but chooses another site in downtown Houston, then that speaks more about a particular site then the area of downtown as a whole. The KBR site and the area around it have been ignored by potential commercial tenants, which I believe speaks about that area as a whole.

The KBR site is uniquely bad because it is void of developments not just on the KBR site itself but the surrounding neighborhood as well. 

It would be helpful to separate the worthiness of Houston as a potential relocation city v. the worthiness of your favorite area in Houston as a relocation area.

Houston as a whole is a great candidate city. Our bus system is the most efficient and reliable of all the southern cities. We have a reasonable mayor and council. Low tax pro business state. Relatively low land prices. Great restaurants, entertainment and music, and fine arts options. Murder rate not as bad as other cities. Two big airports, and a major research university.

Companies are already relocating to Houston every month because of the above mentioned reasons. However, none of those companies are relocating to the old KBR site. 

9 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

I guess Midway is crazy then for seeing major potential there.

Yes.

But give them credit for getting free advertising out of this Amazon bid. They know their site is not a serious play for Amazon, but getting people talking about it for free is savvy marketing. 

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:44 AM, Fortune said:

 

KBR and Amazon do not compare, so I don't know why you would think their affects on the surrounding area would compare.

Previously there was a company with highly skilled, high wage earners in that area, yet the area failed to grow. The issue is not that the area failed to grow as if a 50k employee employer resided there, but instead the area failed to grow at all. 5k employees is still a lot of employees, but you seem to be discounting it. Bottom line is that area is a dump. If it were truly a diamond in the rough, another company would have swallowed it up already. The market has spoken, it's just a matter if you are willing to listen or ignore the market. 

On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:15 PM, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

The New Potato is a great bar.

Amazon moving in to the KBR site would spur major amounts of growth in the area- it would cause a renaissance to the area like the Fourth Ward and Midtown areas are seeing

That would be the hope anyways. That area lacked major amounts of growth, as you call it, even when KBR was there. Remember, KBR in the 2000's wasn't exactly a mom and pop operation. They were one of the largest companies in the city and had a market cap of several billion. However, growth around Clinton drive wasn't exactly spurred by KBR. You would think that area had all the ingredients for growth, you had a major employer, new baseball stadium and new basketball arena close by, supposedly easy highway access, and everything else that has been mentioned in this thread yet the area failed to have a renaissance. 

The typical HAIF response will be, but it will be different when "xyz" company moves in. "ABC" company that was previously there was, horrible, incompetent, etc.