samagon

the NIMBY attitude is a scourge that affects both Liberal and Conservatives, it is an affliction that can't tell the difference between red or blue. people forget their morals, beliefs and things they stand for when something threatens their back yard. which is why I hate NIMBYs and I do everything I can to keep myself from being one, they are so hypocritical, and I dislike hypocrites.

Interesting question, I did a whois on rudh.org (responsible urban development Houston) and here's some interesting information: Domain Name:RUDH.ORG Created On:02-Aug-2010 02:11:20 UTC Last Updated On:01-Oct-2010 03:50:29 UTC It looks like the website and ideals behind the website were developed specifically to try and stop the Walmart, and there is absolutely nothing else they have done, or from the looks of the website, plan to do to promote any responsible urban projects in Houston. So yeah, maybe "responsible urban development" means "do whatever the f--- you want and don't expect our support or anything else, but don't build a Walmart asshole" Just my opinion, but that area isn't even what I'd consider urban, even taking the growth spurt that Washington has seen into account. If Washington is urban because there are some high density apartments and townhomes, then Westheimer at Gesner is urban as well. All that website is, is someone trying to make their whining about a Walmart that close to their house seem more legitimate. Here's a great example of a website that promotes real responsible urban development in Houston: http://www.houstontomorrow.org/ They make some very valid points about the 380, but there isn't anything I found on there that is just bashing the development itself, or Walmart, or even saying that this specific development shouldn't be built. Anyway, they make some extremely legitimate arguments for why the 380 shouldn't be used here, but no where do they say that the site shouldn't house a Walmart, just that the 380 for the type of development that is going in there is a bad investment. Which, when their goal is more urbanized places like the post midtown stuff, I can see why (and that certainly doesn't make their arguments and claims less legitimate, just that they are only presenting what coincides with their agenda). Anyway, rudh.org is a bad joke when considering urbanizing Houston, and http://www.houstontomorrow.org/ is a great example for a urban focused Houston organization. In fact, I plan on reading some of the articles tonight (not regarding walmart and the 380, cause I already did that).

I would assume the address will be 2711 Harrisburg, going to Google maps the building at that location kind of fits the dimensions of the renderings. Google maps doesn't indicate a Centerpoint office, but Google maps has been wrong before. edit: in fact, going to the street view, I'm positive this will be the building... http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2711+Harrisburg+Boulevard,+Houston,+TX&sll=29.729543,-95.327272&sspn=0.013546,0.01929&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=2711+Harrisburg+Blvd,+Houston,+Harris,+Texas+77003&ll=29.752566,-95.346447&spn=0.000846,0.001206&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=29.752637,-95.34658&panoid=cNRWWbhVf-SjJw133aohQA&cbp=12,65.24,,1,-4.82

how far does the setback have to be, and would the patio in front be included in that? I always thought it was 15' from the street to the front of the building, and it seemed like the building complied with that, just the patio was right next to the sidewalk? also, I haven't had a chance to swing by yet (maybe ride my bike over there on Saturday) but did the foliage over the front patio (trees, shrubs and ivy) survive?

Right, they are also going to be adding an additional light at Koehler (as I understand it). Anyway, it's not like there aren't other ways to get around I-10 45 interchange already, I doubt the people that already use those other options are all going to drop them and start using Yale, the way s3mh writes, it sounds like end of days, and they are shutting down traffic on I-10 and only allowing people to travel down Yale as an alternative. Obviously I am exaggerating, but then, so was s3mh. Also, the way s3mh writes it, the only way in to or out of the heights is via Yale, and that just the freeway traffic alone that will divert to Yale will be enough to turn Yale into surface area parking, not even considering the added traffic of people going to the retail development that is scheduled to be built. On what authority to you claim that the number used by traffic engineers is not reality? On what authority do you come by the number that is closer to double? The authority we reference is based on proven facts and references that are cited throughout this thread, the only references and authority I have seen you cite is referencing what one person believes to be true, and not fact.

Typical of you to just make assumptions. I can't speak for RS (although I think I've read that he's lived in the area for a few years now), but myself, I've known people that have lived in the Heights off and on over the course of the last 10 years, and as such I've had the opportunity to listen to them talk about their observations, and opinions on the Heights. In addition to this, I have friends that live in Rice Military, on Washington Avenue near Yale, and scattered around the area. All of which I've had lengthy discussions about their observations, and opinions not only on the area, but on the new development. As we are now needing to qualify ourselves to speak on this matter, how long have you lived in the Heights, or known people that live in the areas affected? How many people bypass I-10 near 45 in downtown presently? Oh, you don't have that information? I'm thinking that the people that bypass that via Memorial probably go down 610 to the Memorial exit (fewer stop lights on Memorial between 610 and Shepherd, and then none from there to downtown), or they go down Washington to Shepherd, or they cut down Shepherd to get to Memorial (and possibly Allen Parkway). They can also exit Washington, and cut down the back streets over by Memorial Park. Yale is and will be a 1 lane in each direction street, the light at Washington will probably only allow 5 or 6 cars to pass at a time. These restrictions will be enough to keep people from using it as a through street.

Since we're very obviously dispensing with fact and going into make believe. The people who have to go to the northwest side of town are obviously going to be choosing to take I-10 Yale to Crosstimbers to 610 to 290. Obviously, since there will be so much traffic going down Crosstimbers, people will choose not to shop at the Northline Walmart, and will instead drive over to one of the designer boutiques in the Heights, causing even more traffic in the Heights itself (I'd recommend starting your assembly to have those businesses relocate). Additionally, this transient population of good hardworking people who choose to shop at the designer boutiques will infuse a dangerous element and extra crime to the Heights proper. The real issue is that this is a stupid thing to oppose, it is very easy to see that when reading your reasons for why a Walmart should not be built on Yale is directly because of Walmart (and pretty much everyone else who is part of the opposition). Hell, until this post I've only ever seen you reference Walmart, not the entire development, and if the anchor store were a Hobby Lobby, Macy*s, Academy, Frys, Best Buy, Ikea, Home Depot, or anything other than a Walmart you would not be opposed. That is why I call foul on your opposition.

This is probably the big reason. Kind of like getting in the car to go see Christmas lights. Err, Festivus for the Restivus lights.

without a doubt.

They better rebuild :-(

Did anyone else have a poor turnout and you are now faced with the arduous task of eating all the candy?

It was a spot on assessment. It's sad to see the spirit of this town's do what you want with what you own mentality just dropped at the request of the few.

so you believe what some guy named colton believes, I believe the bureaucracy in our government sucks. I think we can agree that the application consists of the documents that I outlined? If so, you can go back a few pages to see the emails that were released (as a result of this exact request for open data) to see when and how some of the studies were done. whether the 380 is initiated from a business owner who sees an opportunity in the agreement, or the government that sees an opportunity in the business, what difference does it make who initiates the process, so long as the letter of the law is followed? until there is more than just what some dude (who doesn't like Walmart) saying what he believes to be true regarding the process for 380, I'm not going to agree that the application isn't there. especially when most of the data that comprises what the city outlines as needed has clearly already been reviewed (based on those emails that we saw a few weeks ago) by the city. besides, as has been stated, this project is going to happen with or without the 380. So, regardless of what happens with the 380, you are going to have a Walmart a few miles away from your house. The only question is now, whether the tax dollars that are being used were appropriated within the letter of the law.

It seems to me that the HP (as per normal) editorialized a bit and offered no counter point. and furthermore the open statement is very sensational, and until the city comes back and fully states that the application doesn't exist (currently, even according to that article they state that the city is trying to find it) there isn't much point in reading into it too much. as the ordinance reads to me (don't get me wrong, I ain't no lawyer, but I do have to muddle through confusing manuals and interpret those from the technical intentions of developers to the desired uses of the customers), but that article says that there is no formal 'application'. the ordinance (linked to in the article: http://vvoice.vo.lln...7/5545889.0.pdf) states that the application will be reviewed by certain people, but not that there is an application "form" such that you would fill out to work as a checker at Randalls. The ordinance goes on to state that there are 7 requirements from applicants: 1. Letter describing project and it's impact on the community, and the effect on the city 2. business plan 3. environmental survey 4. survey of the property 5. plan for improvements 6. financial statements for 2 previous years 7. application fee furthermore, according to the ordinance the 'application' is reviewed by the Director of the Department of Planning and Development, and are recommended to city council from there. Why, other than to try and stall and create uncertainty within the community wouldn't someone go directly to the above mentioned director and ask for that information, rather than accepting the word of what amounts to nothing more than a secretary (administrative assistant). Hell, that secretary probably doesn't even know who the director is, or how to contact him. I also bet (I don't have any money, so we're gonna have to make a fake bet) that if the open records request was sent to the Mayors office, it would be handled efficiently and according to the letter of the law, with every intention of displaying due process was followed by the city, and any party involved. Besides all of that.... That article is based soley on what some guy named Colton Candler believes, not on facts (well, other than the fact that a secretary can't find some paperwork in a beurocracy, which is hardly a story): yeah, that's what I would expect Colton to believe, and to say he believes, I believe it is what he hopes is true and wishes were true, but just because Colton Candler says that he believes it, doesn't mean it is true! So, that article is based on what someone believes. Hooray for good journalism. HP really needs to leave real journalism to other people, and stick to what it does well, music reviews, movie reviews, and personal adds.

no, Walmart didn't buy the apartment complex, but it is a more factual statement than a lot of the things you have stated as fact in this thread (and even in the post I responded to, but chose to delete). whether walmart signed the contract on the land or not, that retail development has been affectionately (even by you) called Walmart. Eventhough Walmart is a tenant of the retail development. He keeps in line with what everyone else states. Hell, what's the point of this entire thread? Kill the development project because Walmart is a tenant, and every reference by the opposition to the development references the entire retail development as Walmart. At the point when he made the statements about the ordinance, it didn't rule out the fact that the way it was worded at the time, the government was being granted that power. whether they would use that power or not would have remained to be seen. and unfortunately, the capability (though probably a very big stretch, and against some of the amendments to the bill of rights) is there. If you disagree with my statement, or his, go to the thread about the historic districts (no point in getting farther off topic than we already are) and ask for him, or I, or anyone else that has stated something you don't believe to be true to cite references. so in your example, he stated what could potentially happen based on fact. how this differs from what you do, is that you state what could happen but you don't base that on fact. and yeah, I'll be more lenient on people I agree with because I can see from their point of view, and I can see what they are referencing and getting at. If you want to ask him to back up his statements with facts, I encourage it, and I encourage doing the same to to me or anyone who makes a statement of fact without providing references.

I'm sorry, but if he's misinformed, what does that make you? Is there a word for misinformed, but that is stronger and means 'person that not only is the most misinformed, but spreads that misinformation without caring to find out whether the information they have is accurate even after they've been requested many times to provide it' we need a word that means that. See, the difference is: he comes in here and says "I heard this, is it true?" someone responds giving him the answer and some factual data from a credible source. You come in here and say "This is true" anyone asks you for credible references, you either dodge the request and spout more misinformation, or just don't respond.

3004 Canal, only reason I remember is cause the sign out front says "No. 3004" it's on the south east side of the corner of Canal and Ennis. Also don't think it was mentioned earlier, but this place is very bike friendly (as in bicycle), they have j-hooks in the patio cover, so just carry your bike in with you and hang it by your table.

Here's one that's more disorienting, since it is not oriented to north (if the image was rotated about 90 degrees clockwise, north would be up)... and this one was supposedly taken by ISS earlier this year.

Curiosity makes me wonder what disqualifies the other suggestions?

certainly a more laid back place than anything on Washington (that I've been to).

It is good. $1 lone star on tap. Getting drunk for under $20 is still possible.

Downtown areas devoid of gimmickry, that are otherwise unremarkable... I can't think of anything unique I've ever heard about downtown LA. other than Hollywood is north of it, and the Pacific Ocean is west of it. I guess you could make the case that Kennedy was shot in downtown Dallas, making it unique. I don't think they use that as a gimmick to get people to go there though. downtown Phoenix? Detroit? (maybe come see the blight that remains of a once prosperous city) San Jose? Jacksonville? Charlotte? that's just a few of the top 20 cities in population of the USA. I can't think of anything those cities have in the downtown area that is remarkable, or gimmicky. Aside from some tall buildings in Chicago, is there anything unique/gimmicky/remarkable about downtown Chicago even?

My definition of a tourist is anyone that doesn't live or work in the downtown area daily, whether they live in the city or not. You've got people who don't know how to drive around people on bicycles, cause they spend 99% of their lives driving around out in the suburbs where the only people on bikes are kids supervised by their parents. You've got people who don't understand what a one way street is, and those that do, aren't sure which streets are actually going which way. You've got people who drive 10 miles an hour and stop at every intersection regardless of whether the light is green or red, looking for a familiar landmark so they have an idea where they are. and You've got people who ride in the middle lane of traffic, then decide at the last second, they are needing to turn on this street, and cut across 3 lanes without looking who is there. I'm not saying people need to not come downtown, that's a good thing, I just want to bring perspective to this discussion. More people, as was said, isn't necessarily a great thing. So, I guess I'm agreeing with Kinkaidalum. ha, that gives me an even better idea, we all miss astroworld, what about putting some roller coasters downtown, but rather than these roller coasters just going in a circle, they go from venue to venue. Take the greezed lightning from HP to Disco Green, take the XLR8 from disco green to bayou plaza, take the looping starship from the downtown metro station to the downtown metro station, take the serpent from bayou plaza back to HP!!! I'd gladly pay $2 per ride, and it would be quick too!

I'm actually surprised what someone is willing to rebuild. there's a house at the end of Elliott, on Forcade, that house hasn't got a roof, and it has looked like it will collapse any second (since Ike at least). They put up a fence around the whole house about 2 months ago, and yesterday I noticed that the interior is completely gutted, and most of the roof has been removed. Maybe they're painstakingly deconstructing the house, rather than just bulldozing it in one go? But to me it looks like they're going to do a full renovation. I'll try to snap some pictures of it.

not sure if the apartment complex can break the lease like that (I don't think they can), but it's easy to say, sorry, we aren't renewing leases, or make it cost prohibitive so people don't want to renew their lease, or let them continue living there month to month, with a notice that on month x they gotta go. I think they can also come to an agreement with the tenant. could be worth a call to the rental office to find out about getting a new lease, if they say they have no new leases to sign, there you go. However they do it, it will surely be within the letter of the law. and regardless, it would be up to the tenant to decide whether they want to pursue any legal recourse, if something was done in violation or not. also, there's nothing saying in the information released whether that part of the development is going to happen at the same time as the rest or not, it could be a different 'phase' of what happens?