GovernorAggie

Yes, the sidewalks are still there. I can't see why they would become private space. We would've seen or heard something (I would hope) if that were the case, similar to Bolsover with the Sonoma development in the Village. The 'private' space will be the crosswalks over those intersections.

I drove it this morning too. Pease from Dowling into downtown with a little *pausing*, but no stopping. It's GREAT!

We're all entitled to our opinion. After all, isn't it you who prefers (or at least likes) the way that many building downtown are "pedestrian-unfriendly" and have sour feelings on Houstonians looking at this place as more than a mosquito-infested, toxic waste dump?

Count me in as a witness to the 102 taking forever and a day. You feel like you're making good time, but then you have to go through the CityView nation at Greenspoint, then head to the airport. I've taken the 102 several times, including inbound from IAH around 10:30 AM and outbound to IAH at 5:00 AM. It still took around an hour both times. However, Musicman is correct in that the time to Greenspoint is fast. It's the getting THROUGH Greenspoint that can feel inconvenient. That trip starts to feel even longer when it's not the commuter bus being used (I've made that trip before, too).

According to the article (which has changed the title to say that the project "may be dead"), it looks as if the new developers tried to cut the Texans and HLSR in on the profits. Those two seem worried about things like drink franchising rights, restaurants coming to the new Dome and not the Rodeo, and other things like that. It seems to me that a deal could have been worked that allowed the Dome developers to do build the project but written into the deal that they cannot pursue or enter into contracts with entities currently involved with the Texans or the Rodeo unless those two agreed to it. It seems to me that Coke could have been the official drink of Reliant Park--period, for example, and that includes the new hotel. Maybe they could do something with scheduling, for example that the hotel provides most of it's proceeds from gamedays and Rodeo days to the Texans and HLSR. Just something to get the deal done. Oh well. I am starting to lose hope that the Dome will be saved--especially since the Texans and Rodeo have veto power over any new redevelopment of it--whoever came up with that idea wasn't too smart, the County should be able to pursue deals that are best for the County, not the Texans and the Rodeo. So they'd make $99 Million instead of $100 Million. It seems to me that the critical mass would be worth more

A bulldozer has been out pushing some dirt around for the last couple days. It's probably nothing, but one can always hope, right?

I'm thinking that it becomes, in a lot of ways, Reliant's convention hotel. Seems to me that the Texans would support it in order to help with their Super Bowl bids.

Yes. Zoning DEFINED is only about the use of the land.

I really couldn't believe what I saw in the Chron this morning! Even though I think that some sort of ordinance would be useful in the long-term, this is just crazy. I thought that the public needed to be able to provide comment in advance of something like this--this is a big issue and you'll only get and us vs. them comment period at City Council from the Bigwigs and the Developers. Now, I'd have to side with the anti-zoning types on this one--IMO, this type of action confirms all of their fears. I'm even MORE surprised at this given Mayor White's big speech about "some top-down planner deciding winning and losing developers" based on where it is. This was just YESTERDAY at the Central Houston Annual Luncheon! Did I mention that he seemed sorta belligerent in his demeanor when he talked about it? He hates the ideas of zoning or an ordinance? This is worse than zoning could ever be. It's cherry-picking an ordinance for a select few that could have repercussions throughout the city and ETJ, IMO. Maybe the repercussions could be desirable but we don't know that since there was never time for examination or discussion. Otherwise they should've taken a Texas Legislature approach to is saying that it only applies to areas bordered by a,b,c, and d streets. This is garbage. I hope it doesn't pass OR that the developers take COH to court and win--and build it a 42 floors. I can't believe I'm saying this stuff, but it's this sort of unilateral action that only fosters MORE distrust of the government from people! I'm also disturbed that council got this on Tuesday, but it's not in the Chron until Saturday? A non-business day when fewer people are reading the paper? It's kinda slimy to me. Niche, where you at on this one?

Some company just took up a huge chunk of it as their headquarters. You can see the sign from 45. It's called The Planet or something.

...

Calm. down. niche. I should know your reasoning on this board by now but here goes anyway... No one has explicitly said verbatim "development for the sake of development". I said it as a part of my comment. However, a lot of attitudes in this town is that development is better than none--even if the development may not be optimal. Otherwise, what development are people fearing would leave or not happen in Houston in the event of more guidelines. Truth be told, Houston may have more requirements than any other city--I think the people here are just used to them. I also don't disagree that it's for people, but do you disagree that people's choices are shaped by other stimuli than their own independent, unbiased thoughts? People are guided into decisions sometimes. We are sometimes guided into what we want. Houston's energy bust has made people 21 years later afraid to say the city is in a "boom" time. The point is that do you think that people would flock to a development because the totally want and like it exactly--or because its there? The CVS on Gray does not reinforce that its development style is ok with people--it just reinforces that there is lack of services in that particular sector for that area, in my humble opinion. Lastly (since the topic has really taken a tangent) it's clear Niche that you believe that private endeavors and ventures are almost always superior to public-based alternatives--if nothing else for efficiencies. The biggest reason, IMO that government tends to be more ineffective (at least in perception) than the private sector is that private sector ventures have many fewer masters than gov't. People feel (rightly so) that gov't has to answer and respond to everyone. The fact that no two people are alike already puts gov't on a "bad" footing. That being said, private ventures fail every blue moon too. Small failures usually don't affect the general population like a gov't failure would. However, if the venture is large enough (Vegas Monorail, the airlines, steel and textile factories, etc.) the threat of failure can have an equally adverse effect on people in general.

One word: schools. It can't be taxes because people in Cy-Fair pay out the nose for things like "Educational Support Centers" with property taxes. Other than that, I would argue that the suburbs have MORE barriers for entry than Houston.

Niche, Thanks for the responses to my post. The biggest statement IMO is that we are relegated to theory. Theory. In a "prove it to me" city. That being said, I don't think traditional zoning fits Houston, but some regulation is needed. And while they may seem inefficient, I do in fact trust one planning commission to handle the issues related to land development. Give the people a little credit. After all, the worst that would happen is that Southampton would whine and complain and the Ashby Tower would either be reduced in scale or not happen in this location. Development for the sake of development is not always optimal. It's harder to unscramble eggs than it is to crack them--meaning that a mistake is harder to undo than it is to prevent (such as your dislike of the Costco development on Richmond--would it have been better for the Planning Commission to work with the developer for a better arrangement of the site?). Regarding the Woodlands, I should have read my post and finshed my thought. What it should have said is that once it becomes a city in 2014 or whenever, the Woodlands may have the strictest zoning in the region. I realize that it's a private venture today, but in less than a decade, it will be an EXTREMELY heavily regulated city--in fact I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't be the most regulated in the State. I would be extremely surprised if the people of the Woodlands who take so much pride in their look would allow the area to go to a fragmented deed restriction system. Instead, it will have a strong comprehensive plan with zoning (or some land development code similar to form-based or zoning). I almost feel like I can guarantee that. Which presents an interesting thought--you yourself don't trust the public sector (or maybe just the COH) to make good decisions, but the Woodlands is turning itself into the very system that you don't trust. Is this going to hurt their development or economy? I would hope not. If their economy is so fragile that a silly zoning ordinance would hamper or kill it, then it wasn't strong in the first place. I would say the same about any city--including Houston. It's not too dissimilar to a person living paycheck to paycheck--highly susceptible to outside influences throwing their financial solvency out of whack. Lastly, regarding your last response, the only parallel to zoning is that the City is trying to change its involvement in land development issues (note that I did not say land use). Zoning in and of itself is concerned about land use and many will tell you has contributed to many urban problems today.

Tulsa will have a nice new sparkling arena for the tournament.

I can't say that I agree totally. Does it represent a barrier in some form? Yes, but you are implying with this statement that ALL barriers are bad, which I disagree with. Also, I don't buy that Houston's barriers of entry will be some sort of hindrance that forces development outside of the city. The reasoning is that if Houston was to use zoning, it would likely apply to the entire ETJ, which stretches to Timbuktu except for when it buts up against Sugar Land, Missouri City, The Woodlands, Baytown, etc. That might be an issue except that we all know that Sugar Land has really REALLY strict zoning requirements--down to the color of brick that can be used IIRC. Missouri City has strict regulation and we all know that the Woodlands may have the area's strictest zoning requirements in the region. Does Sugar Land and the Woodlands look bland to a lot of people? Sure. But they are also some of the hottest markets in the area for you-name-it development. One could mention school districts as another x-factor to development, but my guess is that if/when the day comes when Sealy, Rosenberg, and Fulshear's school districts are viewed better than Sugar Land's or Missouric City's, they won't drop their zoning requirements as an effort to remain competitive. So where would the Houston-bound development flee to? Waller? New Caney? Cleveland? Winnie? Because there's a lot of regulation to go around in-between. You may know better that all of us that the feasibility of a project in Houston doesn't necessarily equal feasibility in Prairie View (which also may have some sort of zoning regulation). Developers know that Houston as a whole is growing like gangbusters. They also know about pent-up demand that may exist for closer in development in response to worsening traffic among other reasons. Something as piddly as a zoning regulation will not make or break a deal in Houston. After all, it's not like Post or Hines or Transwestern or Trammel Crow haven't seen *gasp* a zoning requirement or a form-based code requirement before. I'll admit that smaller developers that have only developed solely in the City of Houston may have trouble with new regulations, but they will adapt if they want to continue to prosper. If those developers have managed to make the numbers work in Sugar Land, then I attribute their claims to sound and fury signifying nothing. Speaking of, I have never seen proof (numbers/costs) of the actual increase in costs to the individual public citizen that zoning (or something like it) would bring. Is it $100? $1000? If I can't afford a house that $251,000, then I really shouldn't be buying one that's $250,000 either. On the other hand, if zoning or a park ordinance or any other regulation is going to make a $250,000 home cost $275,000, then we can have a discussion. Until the numbers are presented, consider me skeptical of the claim. It makes me wonder what the outcry was like when Houston told developers that they couldn't build in a whole 25' space in the front of their property. They adapted then. They'll adapt to whatever is new. Zoning (or non-zoning) is not the great equalizer that helps Houston compete with its neighbors--it's being home to over 2 million in its city limits and more than 3 million in its ETJ with millions more to come.

Fall 2008 gives them an opening right with HP

That stinketh. So even the American Community Surveys won't help? I thought that was supposed to fill the gap between the census years.

These look great! I hope to be a buyer real soon on the East End. I'd like to second the question on the noise though. Is it possible to have provisions built in?

The entire near east end of downtown could use more shopping. I guess it's a chicken-and-egg situation, though.

Did anyone attend this?

So will it become the Houston Chronicaluminum Building? Maybe they will surprise. Then again...maybe not.

I think I will be glad when we get a newer Federal Courthouse. The GSA really seems to be making some statements with its more recent architecture.

Agreed. The east just looks powerful to me--"traditional" is a good word for it. The west looks very clean and even a little peaceful in a way to me.

I think 45 was supposed to come back up and go over the Bayou. There was supposed to be a grand, signature bridge (cable stayed) to go over the Bayou.