IronTiger

I think NYC style walkability will never be achieved until average summer temperatures top out at 85, tops.

GDP doesn't have anything to do with a city's amenities, really. An African country could have fantastic GDP but it's going to do jack squat as far as nice things in cities go if it all gets funneled to a fantastically rich warlord.

Cool. Was that store ever a Weingarten, or did it open as a Safeway? I wonder how much space was shaved off originally when it went from Rice to TFM. Also, how much did TFM downscale Rice's square footage? Did Walgreens cut it even further?

The reason was, if the Chron is to be believed, that changed in the mid-1990s when they bought Tom Thumb, they decided to sell alcohol since Tom Thumb already did.

It looks like that the Randalls division was always one division, even though Randalls had a big distribution center for Tom Thumb in Dallas and a big one in Houston, and the new company will keep it that way, incorporating the DFW Albertsons division into it. There will be the South Region for the new company, which will include the Southwest Division (likely Phoenix and areas around it, as I think Arizona had both), Scott Hayes (Southern Division, this will likely include the Baton Rouge area stores and the Florida stores), the United division (probably will take over the Dallas-Fort Worth market entirely), Southern California (self-explanatory), and the Houston division, led by a United division. This means, unlike the rather dubious predictions of page 1 of this thread, that they're staying. I'm curious as to what this means as the future of Randalls (and by extension, the new Safeway-Albertsons) means for the Houston supermarket. Safeway and Albertsons have been bumped off the Houston market in separate incidents already, Randalls has closed way more stores than it opened (a bunch in 2005 shuttered), and a reputation working against them, it will be a tough road ahead if Randalls wants to continue making in-roads into the competitive Houston market.

I'm pretty sure that all of DART's initial lines started in downtown.

That won't happen unless the real estate values of the neighborhood fall into the toilet and never recover (and that permanently ruined a lot of neighborhoods)

Point still stands. Comparisons to DFW aren't really fair compared to Houston because they have a better transit authority and abandoned lines.

Frankly, I can't believe no one's mentioned "Kung Fu Fighting" yet.

Before the month is out, I'll update again. Watch for it!

Part of the problem is that DART is far better organized and literally got the other cities around the area "on board" with transit plans. That and abandoned railways, of which Dallas has in abundance (hence, a lot of their light rail lines) and Houston does not. As for the Richmond corridor, in theory, if we go with the "four lanes required for light rail" standard and Richmond has five, then half a lane could be added on each side (not that much, I guess) to meet that standard. I guess it could work.

Big problem is that the greater Katy area is really an "un-city" because of ETJ rules...because Houston is so close, Katy cannot annex and Katy's tumor-like suburbs cannot incorporate themselves either without Houston's prior approval, and Houston won't annex them because then they'll have to provide city services and all that jazz--some rules passed after the Kingwood annexation means that annexation isn't the free-wheeling thing it used to be. Hence, Katy (and Cypress, and The Woodlands to an extent) continue to grow new suburbs at a cancerous rate, unable to find stability and long-range planning in a true city.

Well, part of the problem about Trader Joe's and Whole Foods is that (like I guess I would consider Phoenicia though I actually don't know what their product line-up is like) they're what you call "specialty grocery stores", in which that they could theoretically provide you with groceries, the brands are too unique and line-up too specialized. That's why, for instance, both my cousin (Houston area) and my brother (non-Houston area) go to Trader Joe's on a less-regular basis then they would a "real" grocery store, because of those specialized products and lack of "normal" products. Know what I mean?

Yeah, they have entirely different distribution centers and everything else. The fact that they came to the Houston market at about the same time is just a coincidence.

Sort of. Aldi split in the 1960s, and the Aldi Nord company operates Trader Joe's as well as Aldi stores in most of Europe (France, Spain, Netherlands), while Aldi Süd operates in southern Europe, the English-speaking countries (USA, Britain, Australia). It's complicated, I just really found out about it recently. Either way, both operate in Houston.

L.A. also has a bustling farmers market that I keep reading about in Bon Appetit, of which there are several ethnic and very good eateries. It always kind of bothered me that Houston didn't seem to have a real permanent farmer's market near the central city at all. Should that be the case, that could put affordable produce and other staples at downtown's reach.

Well, I'm not Culberson's lawyer, because I would be terrible at it (did I mention that I found the whole thing unethical?). It would be like two people having a conversation in 2008: A: "So who are you voting for?" B: "Barack Obama." A: "Why?" B: "Because Sarah Palin's an idiot." A: "How so?" B: "She said that she could see Russia from Alaska, that's total BS." A: "Umm...but Sarah Palin didn't actually say that, that was a Saturday Night Live sketch." B: "YOU'RE SUPPORTING SARAH PALIN, WE ARE NO LONGER FRIENDS." A: "Uh, no, I actually was voting for...hey, where are you going?" Again, friendly reminder, I'm not really against rail, I want to find the truth about the Richmond rail line, but it's hard to have talks about that when I'm up against pro-rail extremists who will happily trot out misinformation and resort to other tactics to try to shut down conversation when anything runs contrary to that.

Fair enough. How does Culberson's restriction on not funding rail for the Richmond portion scuttle the whole line? If that was the case, why can't METRO break it into separate projects to bypass that restriction? Serious question.

In my experience, permits don't mean a building is coming for certain (although Ashby seems inevitable) I can tell you that in my home town, a number of building permits just didn't pan out.

After the Dominick's shuttering, I was convinced that Randalls would be on the chopping block by the end of 2014, but now I'm not so sure anymore. It's possible that the new Albertsons/Safeway will end up changing it somehow. After all, Randalls distribution center now essentially belongs to Albertsons. Things keep changing, don't they? Also, they are building a two-level H-E-B in San Antonio (south of downtown, actually), and while it's not in a super-dense area, it could prove a blueprint for future multi-level stores.

Well, see, that's the thing--the "Culberson overruling the voters" schtick actually isn't true, because it glosses over a few details: - The 2003 referendum didn't actually decide the routes, just that X miles of mass transit would be created in Y corridors, and Z would be allocated for it. At the time, it wasn't even clear that all of that would be light rail (METRO decided that in 2007). - It wasn't until 2008 that the City Council voted (13-2) to allow the light rail on certain city streets. - Even if you were to change your argument that Culberson overruled the vote of the city, he only prohibited federal funding on the Richmond corridor, which is only less than 3 miles. Can METRO honestly not fund just 3 miles of light rail locally? Probably not, since METRO is the king of wasting money, irrelevant of Culberson's decisions and views. I have a sinking feeling that this is what wastes money...commuter rail has been discussed for years (decades), and since UP owns the lines, it's unlikely that they would agree to that. North Main (and Main Street, too, IIRC) was six lanes wide before light rail was added. Now, for most of the route, save for a few spots, it's just two drivable lanes. Richmond only has five.

Was it the recession or the widening of Katy Freeway that killed Las Alamedas?

Yup. If you're defending or attacking light rail, it's a bad argument. But further east along Richmond, the right of way looks very tight already. How are they going to actually fit in light rail and sidewalks with that?

Strawman arguments used against the rail or Afton Oaks (and by extension, rail opponents)? Slick (maybe others, like the one with a cat as an avatar) used that argument for months of why Afton Oaks residents/Culberson supporters/Culberson were horrible/wrong people of why rail should have blasted west toward 610 instead of jogging south and over (or under) 59. I'm personally glad that rail doesn't go west on Richmond, not because I'm a huge Culberson supporter, but mostly to retain the road's partial use as a major thoroughfare, accessibility, and those trees, of course. However, there are really good valid reasons for opposing the route, and good valid reasons for supporting through there. By picking the most dubious, least-stated reason of why the rail shouldn't go through Afton Oaks and attacking that idea, your actual reasons for opposition of their opposition seem weak. How would you defend the other, better arguments, like disturbing (and likely killing) the oak trees, or limiting where you could turn, or by forcing all the traffic onto the outermost lane, you'd be putting all traffic onto the lane that runs closest to houses? On the other hand, if your arguments can be distilled into "If you're against light rail running through your neighborhood, you're a racist", then trying to argue anything else is pointless.