pestofan

Shouldn't this be in the Crater Houston Alliance section?

No way, that is classic Texas kitsch. Give it preservation status ASAP. A good example of the modernist Williams Brothers mission style. Suddenly I miss Taco Bueno...

Well said. Bring in the 1836!

Hard to decide which is the biggest nuisance: all the wires, Santa bum, or the misuse of palms and meatball shrubs on the same property.

Red, in my view the real cost/benefit figure for taxpayers is the combined costs of all the proposed public contributions to the Dynamo stadium and site plus the present value of the projected future costs to maintaining the dome (without factoring in the hotel proposal, which I am skeptical about ever coming to fruition) and the loss of tax revenue that would have been generated by alternative private development (probably loft apartments and some ground retail within 10 years) for the blocks where the current soccer stadium is proposed. So that's a much higher threshold figure for the current proposal versus dome renovations. No, I don't have the cost estimates, but I'd bet $100 in Vegas that the dome renovations/adaption would come in cheaper than the current proposal when all those factors are analyzed. But then I've never had any dealings with former city servants owning land on the proposed site. Snark aside, I'd also bet $1,000 in Vegas that if put to a vote a Dynamo deal that saved the dome would easily beat out a downtown stadium proposal, even if it cost a bit more in net tax dollars. People want to save the dome, the problem has lingered for years, and a 2 for 1 deal usually comes off looking smart and innovative to voters. A PR win for our local elected officials, versus a negative in many districts if the current proposal goes through (especially if the dome to hotel idea collapses.)

Why yes, I do. The dome for football was around 55K. A glassed-in upper deck converted to suites, widened floor, and tightening by installing false walls towards the back 'corners' (yes, it is round by you can sort of square it off if they really want to reduce capacity and give a more intimate feel) could get the capacity down to around 30K + suites. Again, those measures would shrink the interior size and enhance the home court noise advantage, and even the old dome at half empty Oiler games was louder than the Mav's current AAC. So it isn't going to be a 'dead' atmosphere, far from it. But if the Dynamo is so popular with Houstonians that we just must spend lots of tax dollars on them, shouldn't they be able to sell more than 20-30K for important games and rivalries? Seems like the Dynamo is arguing both sides of the issue.

Um, yeah kid, I'm quite familiar with the different dimensions for soccer, football, and baseball fields. After having been to probably close to 100 events at the 2 venues I also have a pretty good sense of their dimensions. Way back in architecture studios we learned a thing or two about the need for basic due diligence. Look, I appreciate your enthusiam for Houston and all things related. Your seemingly non-stop spamming of every urban forum on the net with "Houston is the biggest, greatest, bestest!" cheerleading gets a bit tiring, though (Remember, homework is our friend.) Ever consider that maybe some of us who hold different opinions than you might actually have a background in the subject and perhaps know what we are talking about? OK, back to the topic. Both stadiums have already hosted soccer games (I'm surprised that an expert like yourself wasn't aware of either that or Google.) For the dome, floor size is not a problem, even if they want wide sidelines they can simply eliminate the lowest rows of seats. And since one of the Dynamo's favorite excuse is that the dome seats too many and might not sellout, removing those seats helps reduce the capacity. Another way to mitigate that issue would be to glass in the upper deck into tons of suites. Lots of revenue potential there, and those that don't sell aren't really visible behind the glass so the place can look and feel 'full' with a lower attendance such as 30K or so. Creative advertising backdrops strategically placed could further replace seats and tighten the venue and increase the home noise advantage. Parking and congestion from hosting multiple events in the entire sports complex are issues, but not insurmountable. Control and amount of revenue is a question, but as long as the Dynamo is asking for public dollars it is subject to negotiation. The biggest hindrance is MLS wanting a grass field. Certainly a reasonable requirement, but solved by installing a moveable field (or a sectional system) similar to what Phoenix deploys. In for game, out for growing. Very feasible if the county agrees to make the Dynamo the primary client of the dome. So again, I've yet to hear a legitimate reason as to why the dome wouldn't work, only excuses that are pretty, um, "easily" shot down.

Enough is enough! We have 2 perfectly good pro stadiums in Houston that can accomodate any future needs of a pro soccer franchise, Reliant and the Astrodome. I can understand why the Dynamo and Texans might have difficulty reaching an agreement to use Reliant, but there is no good reason not to fall back on the dome. The county is begging for a tenant and it would be far cheaper to upgrade and adapt then to build a new stadium downtown that would hinder traffic flow. I have yet to read a single good excuse for why the dome wouldn't work. The perfect chance for synergy, instead of wasting more money on team ego and questionable insider land deals. And to make it perfect, the sports' complex parking lot fronts 1836 South Loop! What a great place for a new entrance. Though I might settle for converting the huge parking lot (just a few blocks east of the light-rail) at 1836 Old Spanish Trail into their stadium! 1836 Old Spanish Trail, an address with the added, uh, bonus, of offering something for everyone. Right, Carol Avocado? The team lost a lot of goodwill in this town when it caved to the usual professional victimhood race-card intimidators, they could win a lot of it back by solving the region's problem of what to do with the dome. Public sentiment is strongly in favor of such a win-win solution, what a masterstroke of PR it would be for the team, city, and county. Right now there is a strong anti-incumbent mood towards all levels of gov't based on the perception that little gets done, problems aren't being addressed, and far, far too much money is ineptly wasted. The dome isn't the most important issue we face, but this would be a simple and highly visible solution to counter those perceptions of gov't inefficiency and waste. The Dynamo has their heart set on a brand new BMW, while we have Lexus that is already paid for and can easily be reconditioned. If the Dynamo insist on perfection, let 'em and their entitlement attitude go (to hell!)

I love how the usual anti-freeway and anti-tollway blowhards argue out of both sides of their mouths. First their cry was "A 22-lane monstrosity!" (purposely trying to fool people into thinking just the freeway section itself would be 11-lanes wide and never mentioning that frontage roads and HOV lanes were a part of that number) and now it is "What a waste, they only added 1 lane each way!" Well, which is it, will the new Katy Fwy be too big or too small? Because the pre-construction Katy Fwy sure wasn't 20-lanes wide. The truth is that in each direction they added 1 frontage lane, 1 mainlane, and 1 HOV lane for the full length, for a total of 18 continuous lanes vs. 12 previously. That is a 50% increase in continuous lane miles. A 33% increase in mainlanes, a 50% increase in frontage lanes, and a 100% increase in HOV lanes. So if these anti-road lawyers and activists are supposedly ethical and honest, why do they count all the lanes when they scream "Too big!" yet only count freeway mainlanes when screaming "Too small, not worth the effort!" If the facts are in your favor, why resort to misleading the public? And like a Bassamatic, "But wait, there's more!" The above picture is only a cross section of the new Katy Fwy where the lanes are fewest. In many areas there will be 5 or even 6 mainlanes each way to deal with on/off merging and approaching interchanges, as well as a far more efficient entry and exit ramp setup. Together they add a huge boost in road capacity, so "adding 1 mainlane" doesn't at all tell the whole story. I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but just the mainlane capacity increase is well over 50% with the more efficient redesign. Bottom line, while they may have only added 1 continuous lane in each direction on the free freeway portion, all the improvements equal to more than 2 additional lanes worth of capacity added (the number of cars that can pass through a section in an hour.) Think of all the stop and go congestion where there are many more merging areas per mile, shorter exit and acceleration ramps, and shorter distances from ramp to stoplight. Compare that to the new design that has fewer and longer entry and exit ramps with longer merge sections and emptying onto the feeder roads further back from the stoplights (more room to decelerate and accelerate.) Plus the more than doubling of the HOV capacity (2 lanes is more efficient than 1, so while lane miles double, the number of cars that can be moved per hour more than doubles) and the at least 50% increase in capacity of the feeder roads. (West of Hwy 6 there will be slightly less capacity because the 4 HOV lanes will be only 2 diamond lanes, but capacity was also less in this section pre-construction.) But don't believe me on the number of mainlanes in most areas, look for yourself at the actual planning maps that show the number of lanes for each section: http://www.katyfreeway.org/re-eval.html http://www.katyfreeway.org/schematics.html http://www.katyfreeway.org/ Terraserver has aerial photos from 1995 where you can see the earlier lane arrangements (albeit if you squint!) http://terraserver-usa.com/

The People's Court would title this case, "Palm Reader vs. Palm Greaser?!" (Couldn't find a Judge Wapner smilee)

Joe Turner, the city's parks and recreation director, acknowledged that it is rare for the city to use its eminent domain authority to acquire land for parks. But in this case, Turner said, the action was justified. "We have a shortage of parks in that area, and the Uptown District has done a good job of maintaining parks," Turner said. Well, maybe a shortage if you ignore Memorial Park, one of the largest urban parks in the US, and Grady Park, just a couple blocks to the west on San Felipe (east of Yorktown.) In fact Grady Park is less than a 1/3rd-mile walk from the BLVD Place site, sidewalks all the way, much of it shaded. Grady Park is much larger than this stolen parcel, and any rationalizing that residents would need a closer park to walk their dogs also seems bogus, given all the shaded greenspace frontage and pockets of the high rises next door and across the street.

I wouldn't call her hot, but did Channel 2 reporter Liz Scarborough (sic? I really don't care) come to KPRC from SCTV's 3-D House of Beef? Because in every report she has some annoying prop that she swings back and forth at the camera. In her story just now about Ed Emmett she kept holding up a Hawaiian lei, in a murder story she somehow tackily incorporated a baby blanket to wave, and my favorite was a toll road report where she kept sticking a quarter into a fisheye camera. Like we are all ignorant babies easily distracted by bright shiny objects. What a consultant-driven doofus.

Love the idea of the Waste Management garden. Maybe a sort of homeless Tavern on the Green.

The huge Sam Houston statue, the silly shopping center north of the Woodlands, and now this. Houston is turning into a giant memorial to Stuckey's.

I still call them stewardesses when letting them know that I speak Jive. But don't call me Shirley.

Who remembers when Playhouse Theatre was on South Main at the Southgate corner? Playhouse was very close to the Houston Medical Towers. The Baylor Clinic at 6620 South Main is located where Playhouse Theatre used to stand. Edit:

From today's Chronicle article: "The purchase price assumes the land is worth $49 per square foot, almost four times the assessed value of $12.50 per square foot set by the Harris County Appraisal District. The five blocks are owned by various corporate entities controlled by former Councilman Louis Macey. To acquire a sixth block, owned by a different company, the city has offered to swap a nearby block it already owns." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5551093.html If a former city councilman is paying taxes on a value of $12.50 per square foot, why is the city going to pay 4 times that amount? I seriously doubt that he has an agricultural exemption on that land. If the price is justified because the land has jumped in market value, why is a former city councilman not paying taxes based on its market value? But this site is the wrong, wrong, wrong location for the soccer stadium. Should be three blocks further west, at 1836 Texas Avenue.

If I said, "311 is a joke!" would you call me a public enemy?

If the hotel falls through, perhaps the best option would be to convert the dome into a giant parking garage, covered but open air. Would preserve its groundbreaking feature, the roof, and at least the sense of its original scale. Opening the sides for ventilation would remove most of the high operating costs, while the top level might be rented out for gatherings, parties, and maybe smaller art shows, flea markets, and concerts. If the roof is darkened (to reduce heat buildup) that would work as a shaded rooftop pavillion in the spring, summer, and fall. However with a dark roof the top level might be too cool for use during the rodeo and latter part of the Texans' seasons. Or perhaps add the ability to roll down tent sides to enclose that level when it is cold and use portable heaters? Don't the Texans and other teams do that with giant tents in their lots on game days? And you've already got the big ramps and elevators to move large groups of people and be ADA compliant. Either way, the top level use would just be an added bonus, simply converting the dome into a giant parking garage would free up a lot of the surrounding parking lots for other types of development and the new taxes these would bring in.

Great name. Easy to remember.

OMGOSH, the infamous leprachauns of Mobile! Did they relocate here after Katrina? Here's the original news story: And the rap song it inspired: No wonder Berry didn't immediately report it, how embarrassing is it to be robbed by a tiny Lucky Charms posse?

Marietta's Big Chicken: Houston's Big Turtle:

Sweaty Wayne D. is certainly no Marvin Zindler. Though perhaps he's Marvin Zindler's tapeworm.

Other than upsetting the eternally reflexive Church of the Anti-Auto, this really should be a win-win solution. If there is a noticeable reduction in bus riders after this opens, Metro can simply raise the price until ridership rebounds. At that point the HOV will be operating in a way where no riders were lost, but Metro found a way to get money from those who are not going to use transit. So instead of having just X riders, Metro will end up with X riders + Y extra money to hasten transit expansion. Every little bit adds up. Like it or not, at any given point there is a limit as to how many persons will use a particular transit line, and wishing or utopian proposals are not going to change that any time soon. In the meantime, why not coax money from that other subset of persons who aren't going to choose transit, as long as Metro doesn't cannibalize itself? A little monitoring and adjustment can keep the price high enough so that the latter won't happen. (Or you can think of this proposal as a voluntary new "TAX", or better yet a "TAX ON THE RICH", if those terms are more soothing to you, since I realize that some can only evaluate policy in bumper sticker keywords. "Tax, transit, organic, Target, diversity, Europe" = good, "Auto, meat, church, suburb, Bush, fast food, Walmart, Texas (excepts sometimes here), lawn, gun, business, warmth, SUV, rich, toilet paper,...etc" = bad) And once this experiment proves itself, then Metro can use it (and hopefully similar conversions of other HOV routes) as another funding stream to cite when apply for federal funds. The more local funding matches a proposal has, the better its chances of overcoming the hurdles when applying for limited federal transit money. If we really want to speed up transit expansion, we should pursue every avenue available for such, instead of rejecting some out of ideological purity.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/4902488.html County Commissioner Steve ("Marie Antoinette") Radack said those who cannot afford the rush hour fees should use alternate roads. "Let them go down Richmond Road," he said.