ArchFan

I have seen other threads that say this. However, when I read them, it seemed as if people were jumping to conclusions. I'd rather see more solid evidence before I get my hopes up ...

If the article originated with the Chronicle, I wouldn't try to read to much into the nuances between "and" vs. "or". Likewise with the Taipei newspaper, too. In fairness to them, it may be that the person they interviewed was just relaying ideas about future service they are considering, not necessarily final, formalized plans. As I said earlier (in another thread, I guess), I think IAH did have nonstop service to Taipei in the past. Also, I have flown EVA nonstop between LA and Taipei and wasn't very impressed with their service, even tho' it was business class. Nevertheless, I'd be delighted if they decided to put a Houston flight into service.

In an earlier post, you made some similar comments that made me think about this for awhile. First off, I agree that we have gone through (or are going) through a revolution in communication and information, one which was not really anticipated by most people. (Perhaps all people, save a few visionaries.) However, having a revolution in that field does not guarantee revolutions in all other fields of commerce and industry. Regarding transportation, I have to wonder about what's next. Right now, we have machines that physically transport our bodies from place to place. Some of those are under our direct personal control (automobiles) and most others are under the control of other humans (buses, trains, airplanes). I don't think you're suggestion that teleportation is just around the corner. But, if not, how different will it be from the modes we already have, in which we have some choices between direct personal control vs. ceding control to another person? In short, I am having trouble envisioning what new transportation mode might be just around the corner that is very different from what I've outlined. I'm open to being convinced, but at this point, I'm more persuaded by Vic's point of view ... that we need to get going now, as long as we plan and implement it wisely. (I would agree that so far, we and Metro haven't done as well as we could have on that last qualifier.)

My thought, exactly. That is a super-primo view. There aren't many places that provide such a close-up panoramic view of the downtown high-rises, unobstructed by elevated freeways. I think it would be terrific if the property could be developed in such a way as to provide restaurants and bars with that view, plus of the bayou and associated amenities ... plus being a short walk from the Wortham Center. Personally, I would lean toward having the north side (away from the bayou) developed as high-rise residential.

I like how the bayou really widens up as it passes east of downtown. It creates a quite different impression that most people aren't aware of. I think the area has a lot of potential ... and I hope "we" will realize that by guiding its development with an eye to the future, rather than just letting things happen piecemeal.

Wow, I wouldn't want to be passing by on Montrose during this demo!

This is good for Plano and Dallas in general, of course. OTOH, I tend to doubt it will bring enough Japanese nationals in to make a really big impact, such as making a lot more Japanese grocery stores viable. I'm sure it will help whatever ones are there, though. This is just my opinion, for what it's worth, but it is based mostly on being connected through a friend to Japanese nationals (ex-pats) who work in Houston for various companies that are involved in machinery, chemicals, and the O&G business. Surprisingly, that is a lot of people, and I hear a lot about their preferences in terms of where to live, shop, send their kids to school, etc. I also know Torrance, CA, fairly well. In addition to having a great climate, it has a Japanese community that goes back over 100 years. I.e., a lot of grocery stores, restaurants, and the like, ever since Japanese people started farming there way back. So ... the move might be a step-down for Japanese ex-pats in terms of amenities, but I'm guessing that is a much smaller group, compared to the thousands of jobs filled by natives that will move to DFW.

This reminds me of something I read earlier in this (or another) thread: that a Japanese company is proposing to invest a major sum in the Texas HSR project. That would be great, but I think that (at least so far) is just a pleasant conjecture. Just because JR (or whoever) is willing to be involved as a consultant or designer doesn't equate to ponying up billions for construction. Gosh, how I wish they would, though! :-)

I just don't want it to be either (1) tacky or (2) underwhelming. I think that, if done right, it would be a really nice addition to downtown and to Houston. By "done right", I am not thinking about how tall or glitzy the building is ... but rather, whether it brings to light the myriad facets of Houston's unlikely rise to being a city of international importance. One good source appears to be Louis Aulbach's book, which (among other events) discusses the 1837 arrival of ~300 Comanches camping on a gully and spring in downtown Houston (near today's Wortham Theatre) to petition Sam Houston and make a treaty with the Texas government based in Houston. The details are very interesting and otherwise one would never imagine such things would occur in "boring ol' downtown Houston".

I agree that if there were a lack of views from many rooms, it would make it less attractive as a hotel property. In any case, I sure wish Kimpton would put a hotel downtown. I've stayed at them in Portland and DC and enjoyed their product and services. Frankly, I can't believe they haven't placed one here ... so, I'm guessing that (being from San Francisco), they don't think we're "cool" enough. I mean, Dallas got one first, now Austin is getting one. <sigh>

I feel depressed whenever I see this building from the outside. I don't recall the cost, but I'm sure the money could've been spent better. I do agree that it is functional on the inside, while being just bland, rather than embarrassing as it is from the outside. Trying (desperately) to look on the bright side ... perhaps it will wind up being viewed in the future somewhat like the Shamrock Hilton was in its later days: ugly, but an interesting historical reminder of an earlier era ...

As I recall, the first dorms set up for UH-DT were in the building that was formerly the Travelodge Hotel at Main St. at the SE corner of its intersection with Buffalo Bayou. Travelodge was a chain that I saw all over the western US in the 60s ... and had a sleepy bear in a sleeping gown as it's logo mascot.

I've heard people refer to them as "tiaras", which is consistent with how many of them are pretentious and kitschy (at least in my opinion). But ... better a tiara than another Justice League Superhero HQ like the one off Gessner and I-10 :-)

As far as high-rises, you can add Montebello, Villa d'Este, the upcoming Belfiore, Highland Tower, off the top of my head. I think there are others going up, too. Also The Austonian in Austin, which amazingly is not clad in beige brick like so many of the rest. As for mid-rises, The Gables Tanglewood, The Briarglen, and the development off Weslayan @ West Alabama (I forget the name). Apologies for not just pointing to their web page (which I've visited in the past) ... but I'm just trying to demonstrate how highlight they seem to have captured that market in Houston.

I'm guessing that the relative lack of success with Commerce Towers has discouraged other condo conversions (or even new construction) downtown. I was looking downtown at one time, but as a consumer, I found CT a real turn-off; I don't think it was a very well done conversion.

A few years ago, I noticed that many developers would build apartments and later they (or whoever subsequently owned them) would (try to) make money by doing a condo conversion and selling them later. This is just an idle thought. But, I'm wondering about why so many developers seem to want to build rental units, not condos. Is it mainly because that's what they can find financing for, as opposed to for condos?

I think the stronger "anti" argument might be about cost, not feasibility. E.g., the BART in San Francisco goes under their bay, and even Amsterdam has a subway despite being at or below sea level. Also, there's the sub-channel tunnel between England and France that carries both highway traffic and trains. We could do it, but it would be more of a matter of deciding it's worth it (if we funded a significant amount of it locally) or else being able to get a Houston-friendly federal government to shoulder most of the cost. The latter seems unlikely these days, though. Houston historically has paid a lot more in taxes to the federal government than it has gotten back in funding ... unlike DFW. For that, I blame our choices in local elected officials.

I agree about the Embassy Suites ... a really wasted opportunity. But, I imagine if the downtown hotel market is as tight as they say, the owners are probably doing quite well. Frankly, I wouldn't expect them to give a hoot about our opinions on the design.

It's amazing, I agree. But ... there are people out there who have accumulated a lot of money over their lifetimes. For example, someone who started a business and sold it for $20 million might retire and invest that money. If they (conservatively) spend 4% of it per year. That's $800K, or $66,666/month to spend. I've known some people who were smart, aggressive, and business-minded who did stuff like that. I don't know their numbers exactly, but I think that's in the ballpark. They are not the Oprahs, Kinders, or Mark Cubans, but they are quite comfortable.

Before Bubba the Roach, there was the giant shrimp (on Main St, I think) clutching a six-shooter in each hand. The over-the-top icons in the Houston of my childhood were whimsical. They didn't make me think of the Taliban.

Would $400 million be enough for a supertall anymore? People elsewhere have been tossing around numbers like $2 billion. Amazing what inflation can do ...

Construction of ultra-high-end high-rise condos seems to be pretty hot right now in NYC, driven to a large extent by wealthy foreigners. My guess is that if we see more condos in downtown Houston, they will be mostly in new buildings, not repurposed older buildings. Also, I think the loft style is passé. I looked at Bayou Lofts when they were just starting to market them and liked the building in general, but didn't want to live in a condo in which the bedroom is essential open to everything else. Not very practical for people who need a quiet room to sleep in. I like the idea of condos built in tandem with the Buffalo/White-Oak Bayou diversion canals. The devil is in the details, of course, but that could be very cool if done right.

OTOH, seeing a giant replica of the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes me hungry! Not enough, however, to pull into the closest Olive Garden. I guess I'm just too much of a maverick <sigh>

Personally, I am embarrassed to see the fad of giant religious icons take hold in Houston. I used to associate it with 3rd-world countries with low education levels. I'm not knocking people for having the beliefs they have, but I think that putting stuff like this up doesn't get them the respect they apparently yearn for. It seems rather childish, in the vein of "my religious icon is bigger than yours". Is that going to make me respect them more or want to join their fold? No.

Yeah, it seems odd to have so many high-rise residential projects underway, with almost all consisting of rental units. The only exceptions I know of are the 2 in Uptown: Astoria and Belfiore. In particular, with all the apartment construction downtown, I'm surprised at what appears to be a total lack of condo construction. The last proposed project I can remember was "The Shamrock", which was to be where Hines' 609 Main office building is going up.