samagon

8 weeks left in the year, if they manage to get it open before EoY, it'll be close.

I would have thought this would have been a great Aldi's, or Trader Joe's location. I guess we don't have enough super sized gas stations in the area though.

see, if I were going to use this name for a place, it would be specifically for statements like this that I would argue that this needs to be the name. are we sure it's a night club and not a strip club?

and I guess it matters too that there are east facing patios on the 2 upper living levels.

I was imagining if something like this were tried in the Heights. which naturally led to me imagining the number of entitled drivers that would either run into this, or complain of how unsafe it is, or impossible to navigate with their oversized emotional support trucks.

I like that they have a rooftop patio, but facing west, that's going to be completely unusable at least 4 months out of the year. and whoever buys them has to hope that the rest of the land doesn't end up with a building taller than the patios.

I like the idea of being able to take the rail to pick up a rental truck (or drop off). the logistics of getting someone to drop me off/pick me up from the uhaul is gone. also, if I'm renting it for a few hours, I don't have to worry about parking in a sketch lot.

campaign contributions ensures votes.

if they're like the concrete curbs on Lawndale between Telephone and Wayside (where the residential fronts Lawndale), then people will still park in the bike lane.

or look at his campaign contributors, that has more to do with it than which side of the aisle he sits.

hopefully you didn't drive on the curbs!

with Spur 5 (which is just called Spur 5), when it is built out to 610, will it still be called Spur 5? how long will it have to be to no longer be called Spur 5, but maybe the Friendswood freeway? I think there's already a Pearland Parkway. maybe the Alvin Avenue?

I am no hydrologist, but I'd guess there's more to do with obstructions upstream in the downtown area that doesn't move enough water (and floods downtown), than it is to do with downstream.

very true about the bayou paths, and at least if you go upstream, you can access other paths that connect to the bayou. I guess my overall point was that right now we are getting a whole lot of really nice paths in various areas of town, and not many are connected, or if they are, you have to go out of your way to get to a destination. it's like if we had roads, but only 1/4 of them were paved, and then of the ones that were paved, not the entire length would be paved, and it wouldn't be contiguously paved. so if Westheimer were paved, Bagby to Taft would be paved, then it would be dirt from Taft to Shepherd, and then paved again to Kirby, then dirt all the way to 610. etc. we have some great paths, at some point we will have a great connected network. the closer we get to that connected network (which will go a long way to making it a viable transit method), the more people will use it.

I'd love to see a zipline installed between the two!

TXDoT does it on every freeway!

yes! more people out there on bikes, that would be fantastic. it can get there, no doubt. on the bike path to nowhere (currently), Lawndale near Wayside. I usually see 1 or 2 people on these paths any time I am in my car, and I am on that street at least daily. I call it a path to nowhere because literally, at Telephone it ends, no other connecting lanes, and then at Forest Park Blvd it turns into a sharrows that just stops being marked about 30 feet after that intersection. with time there will be more bike lanes that can take people places from this one on Lawndale, and imagine, if 1 or 2 people are already using it with nowhere to go, once a rider can actually go somewhere safely? yeah. it'll happen.

every time I see this thread, I see memes in my head.

basically, the ordinance would restrict the minimum width of 33' for a front loading driveway. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/houston-city-council-delays-vote-driveway-18376685.php

I think this is the crux of what you are missing, and my last comment on this subject in this thread. I don't wants you to have to take transit, and I don't believe anyone in this forum wants to make you take transit. a lot of people want to not be forced to drive cars because the other options are horrible. they don't like having to pay for infrastructure they don't want to use, but they are forced to, all because you don't want to have to pay a small amount in extra taxes to support other options. the nicest thing I can say about your opinion is that it is exceedingly hypocritical, and that you are extremely self centered. you want only your method of transit to be bolstered by taxes that everyone pays (roads). and then, by way of not wanting to pay taxes for other methods of transit to make them anywhere close to equitable, in essence, you would force everyone to use your preferred method of transit. and until you realize that what you want is for everyone to pay for and conform to your desired form of transit, and you don't want to see others be able to use other forms of transit that have equitable public funds put into them so as to be viable options because you don't want to pay for it, there's not really any point in continuing to discuss this. and for the record, I do want to pay for transit I don't use. I love driving my car, but I absolutely want to pay more taxes so that mass transit, and other infrastructure can be better built out, I know this will take people who don't want to drive off the road which will make more room for me to drive (so yes, my motives are selfish).

it's not necessarily that an individual person chooses to support the oil industry, or car companies, or just big business in general, we've just been conditioned for generations that not only are cars the only way, but it is superior way.

I don't think the city can be selective like this. what they should do is increase the requirement of ALL parking lots for shade trees being put in. I think they have a specific amount of trees per SF right now, but they should just increase it across the board for everyone. maybe update it within the guise of renewable energy and say you can skip trees if you put in solar panels.

and the highest level of irony is that statistically, trucks/SUVs are far more dangerous than cars. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/

European cities aren't even designed like European cities. if you do any small amount of research you can see that in the 50s, 60s and even into the 70s and 80s as they rebuilt Europe (after a war completely bombed out a fair number of big cities) they favored a very car centric design philosophy. and then they changed their philosophy as they saw cars killing pedestrians (children walking to school usually), and then the cost of oil/gas started to skyrocket, so public opinion forced change. they've been working for 40+ years to revert the scars created by huge roads. we all visit now and presume that because a church in the middle of town is 400 years old that the city itself and the way it was designed is held over from 400 years ago. anyway, they have focused for the past 40 or more years on creating walkable cities, which has come from the people pushing for it, where we have focused on driveable cities, which came from car and oil companies wanting to sell more stuff, so in that regard, you are very right, we have not designed cities like they have in Europe. as far as a European lifestyle, nope, it's all marketing from car manufacturers, the same marketing that has been convincing people that trucks and SUVs are safer than cars because they give you a better view, when in fact, there are more deaths associated with truck/SUVs in accidents. you've been convinced that the American way is driving, and it's simply not true. that's what the car companies want us to believe so we keep buying their cars to keep them in business. imagine living in a world where you don't have to spend $100 a week on gas, $200 a month on insurance, and $500 a month on a car payment. yeah, $1000 a month so you can use the transit infrastructure the state/city built. talk about subsidized transit!!! and yet, you've been convinced that paying a few dollars a month in taxes is too high of a subsidy for mass transit. but hey, at least you own a depreciating asset that you'll trade in few years for a new one, or maybe you lease, which is paying all the subsidy without having any ownership. well then, we should look at Manilla, that is a city with super cheap cost of living, and great public transit. anyway, to consider cost of living without also considering the kinds of wages people make is kind of only looking at half the equation, and without stating that, people are going to naturally try and equate their own wage, which is worse than not equitable. heck, even cost of living in San Diego vs Houston is silly. any which way you look at it though, they have roughly $1000 extra in disposable income that they aren't putting towards a car, so they can afford to put more into their housing needs. anyway, the cost to maintain an infrastructure for pedestrians is monumentally lower than it is for roads. like an order of magnitude monumentally. we're talking hundreds of thousands for a mile of sidewalk vs multiple millions for a mile of roadway. that's cost to build, maintain should be even less. and our city doesn't even maintain sidewalks, it dumps that on landowners! it'd be great if whatever entity you want to pin it on would provide equitably funded options so everyone isn't forced into paying the $1000 a month subsidy that we all are forced to pay to use roads. heck, even if you own a car outright not making payments, you still pay $100 a week for gas, and even with minimal coverage, $100 in insurance. so at least $500 a month subsidy you have to pay to enjoy a road you paid for. sure the subsidy goes to for profit companies, but isn't that who builds trains, and who is contracted out to make the steel for the tracks, or concrete for the roads? the only difference is the subsidy is paid directly by you into the oil company, rather than through taxes into the concrete company. true enough, TXDoT's job needs to be changed to include all forms of transportation, not just the one that lobbying oil companies, and car companies get them to fund.

there's one of the new shelters on spur 5 near UH, at least I presume that's what it is, I need to take a picture of it for this thread. I laugh every time I see it.