Ross

If you don't remind revealing your source, where/how do you get access to the older Topographic Maps?

Castaneda Library site has them

Probably just weights in the bottom of the poles. Also they look slightly smaller than the holes.

 

The bottoms were smaller. I remember seeing that. Every now and then there would be a missed spot, or a dropped pylon

 

Did the contraflow pylons have magnets in them? That's the only way I can imagine it being as easy to stick into the roadway as it appeared.

No, they went into holes.

I remember driving on 45 when the contraflow lanes were in effect. Nothing like seeing cars in the lane next to you, headed the opposite direction, at high rates of closing speed, and nothing but a bunch of plastic poles to separate you. It was fun watching the workers place and remove the lane separators as the rest of us zoomed past.

Actually, there is another way that worked just dandy for decades and decades, until the word "taxes" became the ultimate in foul language.   Had the per gallon gas tax kept up with inflation since it was last raised more than 20 years ago there would be twice as much money in the highway trust fund.

 

Absolutely true, but there are many folks out there who are convinced that roads can be built for next to nothing, or that someone else ought to pay for them.

Why does every new freeway have to be a toll road? to me it defeates the purpose of relieving traffic.

Only way they can finance them. There's no money to build new roads quickly without tolls.

Where's the 365 market site?

 

NE corner of Yale and the Loop, where the equipment rental place is. There's been a couple of posts on that topic, but I can't find them.

 

It's open. You can drive the entire length of Yale from near 45 North to where it turns into Waugh. It's actually a pretty cool drive. There's the site prep for the new Booker T Washington high school, the future site of the 365 market, sites in the Heights due for redevelopment, etc.

Weren't you here for the first round of these arguments back before Christmas? I answered everything you just said back then. And yes, as it happens, I think that the interests of preserving a city's history should be put in front of whatever profits can be made by destroying it.

 

Also, if you're going to sit here and say they're "mediocre" and "merely old, not historic," please name for me the new buildings going up downtown that have the level of detail in their brickwork as the building in the above picture. There are at least a dozen buildings going up, so it shouldn't be that hard for you.

 

Who cares? I look at whatever is there and hope the owner is happy with their decisions. I thought the buildings at 509 and 517 were mediocre. They just weren't that attractive to me.

Lulz.. Ross is the epitome of the anti-preservation twins.

More of a proponent of property rights where the property owner generally gets to decide what is done with the property. I am happy when a property owner chooses preservation, I just don't think it is right to force that decision.

It sort of has the smell of, when the previous generation ran the hotel, they held onto the buildings out of concern for history and the trust that sooner or later they'd be profitable, but when the kids took over the business, they saw dollar signs and ordered the demolition. Just a shot in the dark, but that's how these things often go.

 

I'm not understanding why you think it would be unreasonable for the owners to make a profit. Are you saying that the owners should suck it up and make less profit simply so you can enjoy looking at a couple of mediocre buildings with no real historical significance(they are merely old, not historic)?

Looks like two town homes mashed together. Does that count as a condo?

 

Being a condo has nothing to do with appearance. It's a form of ownership.

 

Yeah to eventually tear them down with little regard for the cities history. I'm more than appreciative of the renovation of the Lancaster Hotel but to destroy to historic pieces to this city for a parking lot is insane. 

 

No, it's good business if they have an alternate use. They've owned those properties since at least 1994. That's not dabbling.

 

In most cases (specific to individuals) I am very much against changing the rules on someone after they have signed paperwork.

I mean, you buy a thing (anything) with specific intentions, and then someone comes up to you after you've decided you want to do something with what you own, and they tell you that you can't do what you want to do, even though that thing that you want to do wasn't stipulated when you paid for it. well, what if that was the reason I bought it? You just completely devalued my investment.

In the case of businesses, I'm less concerned. Despite this being a family owned business, it's still a business and there's risks involved. If one of the risks is that they can't demolish a historic building, then that's what needs to be done. Maybe they should have stuck with being a hotel, rather than dabbling in properties.

They weren't dabbling in property, they had a specific reason for owning them related to the hotel that is directly adjacent.

They need to sell those buildings. I'd buy the old Longhorn one in a heartbeat. Maybe the other one too. Then, they'd have plenty of cash to work a deal with the new Lyric Center garage going up right down the street.

 

Why would they sell the buildings when they have plans to use the space for future expansion?

I wonder how long we're going to have to wait for this:  http://koin.com/2014/10/07/man-practicing-open-carry-law-robbed-of-gun/

 

Again, I'm not anti gun, just familiar with the inevitability of Murphy's Law.

 

That is one awfully written news story. And, the line that the thief's weapon was "possibility a semiautomatic" is bizarre. Revolvers and semiautos do not look much alike.

 

Which is why bars and others ban them and always have.

 

Bars only ban firearms because it's state law. And that only really applies to establishments that get more than 50% of their revenue from the sale of alcohol for on premises consumption.

 

The modern cowboy can come to town not from his working ranch but from his suburban rancher, leave his gun in his car, go get blotto, then come back to his car, strap on his piece and, with a newly found whiskey trigger finger, decide to have his own version of a modern Texas shoot 'em up.

 

The open carry law does nothing to make this more or less likely. It doesn't stop anyone from having a handgun in the car, since that's been legal for a few years, based on a prior law. Plus, anyone who is likely to do that isn't going to be stopped by a law in the first place. And, it is against the law for a carry license holder in Texas to have a firearm while intoxicated.

When I see ordinary citizens open carry in to a place of business, I plan to advise management that either the gun gets put away or I'm taking my business elsewhere. Too many choices in this town.

 

Why do openly carried handguns makes you afraid? I'm not a fan of open carry, but I am not going to let it bother me.

Anyone know why Lola's demo'd their deck and expanded the sidewalk?

Not that Hall is lying, but his name doesn't appear on any of the FCC ownership filings for KCOH that I was able to find.

 

Note to self, must get a life.

No, they're not going to rehab it today. But neither should they tear it down today, on the assumption that it will never be profitable.

 

Walk through any city that has a beautiful, vibrant historic district. Do you think those buildings were always profitable? Every city has gone through eras where its history fell into neglect. At one time, Galveston's Strand was barren. Here in Houston, we tore down a bunch of buildings on Market Square in the 70's-80's that would no doubt be quite profitable today.

 

There is a name for the logic you are using, and it's called "short-sighted thinking."

 

No, I am thinking like a rational business person. Unless you want to fund me holding on to a building that is costing me money every day, and increasing operations cost for the rest of my business, your views are irrelevant.

 

This has been addressed. See post 91 at top of this page.

 

Edit: Or read the second paragraph of Kinkaid's post right above.

 

Only in very nebulous terms. Nothing in those posts addresses my question in any sort of useful detail. No one is going to rehab a building today based on pie in the sky estimates of new Downtown residents years from now. There is a very  high risk of "if they build it, no one will come and pay as much as is necessary to make the deal economic". And, given the high failure rates for new restaurant and retail businesses, the vacancy costs will likely be high.

 

As for Kinkaid Alums, if the location is so great, why didn't BB's just stick it out until the massive crowds appeared? That's right, the economics didn't work. If BB's bailed due to bad economics, why shouldn't the owner be able to make changes to satisfy his economic requirements?

However, in about one year, there will be 2-3,000 more people living within a 10 block radius. A restaurant with access to a huge and private back patio with a beautiful shade tree would mint money unless it sucked. Our buddies run Botanga and they are wildly successful with their huge space (albeit, a better location). The new restaurants that have opened downtown and have a solid business model and stellar food/drink, are doing really well right now. Things are only going to get better as all these residential units come on line.

 

The Lancaster Hotel and Bistro are being short-sighted. Sure, 50 parking spaces would be nice for any venture, but they run the risk of alienating their neighbors. I imagine most folks who live downtown are not going to take the news of this demolition too well and the added scar on the streetscape will not be appreciated by the folks who live near Market Square just as the city is starting to be pieced back together. Adding another surface lot, removing shade trees, and adding another means of vehicular egress does nothing but detract from downtown life.

 

Do you think that any business located in these buildings can generate enough rental income for the building owners to make a decent return on the costs to rehab the buildings, plus cover the incremental costs to find suitable parking spots on a long term basis within a reasonable distance (no one likes to wait more than a few minutes for their car to show up)?

 

Interesting repurposing. I admit I don't know the economics but it makes me wonder why an ATT building can be transformed but the buildings on Louisiana can't be saved.

 

Better economics for the AT&T building. You can save any building with enough money. The problem is that most owners don't want to spend $4 million to end up with a building that's worth $1 million. Nor do they want to spend a pile of money to rhab a building that can't generate enough rent to make the investment worthwhile.

Everyone keep calling and voicing your opinion. We need to save these buildings

 

Saving the buildings is a want, not a need.