livincinco

I'd also add the major economic benefit that has been created by increased ease of movement of goods.

We'll just respectfully disagree on that statement and move back to the topic of the thread.

Glad to hear that there's nothing interesting outside of your immediate neighborhood. Does this mean you will stop your constant commentary about Houston's failings in comparison to other cities that you've visited? I truly pity anyone who feels that everything interesting can be found in their neighborhood, city, or even in cities in general.

According to Collier's, we're both wrong. They show downtown office space at 40.2M, the Galleria area at 20.2M and the Med Center at 11M. Katy Freeway is at 16.8M and Westchase is at 12.6M with a combined 3.3M under construction. The reason that you compare the 200 sq mile westside to 2 sq mile downtown is because the topic of the thread is Houston in 17 years. The amount of growth on the west side exceeds the amount of growth in the Galleria which exceeds the amount of growth in downtown. I agree that it's not correct that the west side rivals downtown today. I'm not so sure that it's correct to say that it won't rival it in 17 years.

No, but the combined West Side (Energy Corridor, Westchase, and Memorial City) does.

I know people who live in Manhattan that will, with complete sincerity, say that there's no reason to ever leave the island because "everything interesting is there". I just laugh.

Bubba's Texas Burger Shack. 'nuff said.

2016 is way too far away to make predictions about. The front runner two years out almost never wins.

Understood. My point is to differentiate between the areas that METRO services and the ones it doesn't. METRO needs to improve transportation for everyone that is served by the system, but communities that are outside their service area, such as Pearland, are going to need to develop solutions that best serve their communities.

Your statement really isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Pearland is looking to establish P&R and is requesting federal funds to institute that program outside of METRO. They have every right to request those funds and they have no interest in supporting the objectives that you described above. Whether they will actually get those funds is an open question, but there's no question that they have the right to request them regardless of the perceived need inside the loop.

Damn you and your "facts"!

Profitable really isn't the issue, opportunity cost is. Let's accept that the land got sold out from underneath them. They clearly weren't making enough profit to relocate and open the store in another downtown location. I don't know what their rent was at that location, but I'm going to guess that it was below market value (which could have also contributed to their profitability). I don't have the data to say for sure, but there just doesn't seem to be evidence that street level retail in downtown is a good business investment at this point.

It's OK. We'll continue to take the jobs, the economic development and the ugly buildings that come with them out here on the west side.

I'm with you. As I've mentioned before on this site, I think that the general trend towards urbanization is going to result in development of an increased number of smaller cores rather than a mass influx of people moving into the loop. I definitely agree that the area gets much richer with the development of those smaller communities. The one thing that I disagree with you on, is that I think that Brookshire/Sealy turning into those kind of communities would drive office development in Katy rather than pull from it. Those would be very viable commutes to the Katy area and would allow them to retain a "small town" feel as well as being a nice getaway from the city. Same is true with Rosenberg/Sugarland. I'm still surprised at how few "quaint" small towns exist in the Houston area in comparison to other cities. Would love to see development in some of those towns to support that kind of feel and to present another lifestyle option in the Houston metro.

I've got no argument at all with creating a large amount of public space around the Brazos River and I'm all in favor of Texas creating more public land. My point is that it potentially doesn't create the intended result. A park such as you describe increases the attraction of communities such as Rosenberg, Sealy, Brookshire, and Hempstead significantly because of their proximity to that kind of an area. I wouldn't be surprised if it caused an increase in growth.

I agree completely with you about parks. We talk a lot about various ways that the city can spend money and while I'd love to see numbers against it, I'd bet that the ROI on parks is higher than investment in transit, 380 deals or almost any other city investments. I disagree with you about a western park as an artificial urban boundary though because I think that's counter intuitive. George Bush Park and the rest of the existing parks on the west side are a great example. You could argue that George Bush Park formed a similar barrier to what you proposed, but I'd argue that the existence of those parks spurred development in the Energy Corridor and in Katy because it provided a major amenity to the area. Whether urban sprawl controls are desirable or effective is a whole different conversation for another day.

There's a key point that you're missing here though. Macys closed their store because it wasn't doing enough business. It's great to speculate about how nice it would be to build storefronts but they need to be able to do business and there just isn't any evidence at this point that sufficient retail volume exists to do that. Pavilions/Greenstreet has had success as a entertainment/dining destination, but hasn't been able to generate any significant retail presence. The only way that you draw a department store anchor at this point is by giving a large 380 development agreement. I would argue that money is better invested in drawing residential for the near term and then letting the retail develop organically from the increased population.

I think that there's a NIMBY aspect to this as well though. Let's face the facts. Houston is a city that was built on oil. It's no different than how Chicago was built on the stockyards and Pittsburgh was built on steel. Making that transition from being an oil town to truly being a world city is something that has been underway for 30 years now and will probably continue for another 30. The elimination of refineries around the city is something that will have to happen over the course of years and possibly even decades. Do we want them there in the future? No. But we also have to remember that this city would have never have become the fourth largest city in the country without them.

Pearland has indicated that they expect to turn a profit when federal subsidies are included. We obviously won't know the actual finances for a couple of years, but if your point is that METRO would potentially lose that much in the same scenario, you might be right. They haven't been effective at managing money at all.

The bond measure funding the mobility projects passed in the election yesterday. http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/ranch/news/fort-bend-voters-approve-county-s-mobility-bond/article_f3914658-4705-11e3-b830-0019bb2963f4.html

Pretty hooked on the big HEB Plus that's in my neighborhood, but will hit Whole Foods or Trader Joe's for certain items. Love the big Phoenicia on Westheimer as well.

I feel the same way about that whole "Midtown" gimmick with all of its boring apartment buildings. Yawn.

Mountains.

I...didn't realize that you could write full sentences!

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the LOE to bring a refinery offline is slightly higher than hitting a switch if the wind changes direction.