The Great Hizzy!

West of the Beltway, they are indeed leaving space for what appears to be some time of greenery: trees, shrubs, etc. It may be a Westchase function only, though, because I don't see much of it taking place east of the Beltway and none west of Kirkwood.

Good shots, Montrose. It seemed busier this past weekend to me (definitely cleaner). Still not as busy as you would want but busier.

Well, that I'm aware of but I was more thinking along the lines of the banter, pot shots and digs taken by rival cities. I don't sense much of that. For one thing, Galveston is so much smaller. It would seem apropos for Galveston and Texas City to have a neighborhood rivalry. Of course, I've only lived here for nearly six years so I'm sure that I'm in the dark overall.

East side of the Inner Loop (in no particular order): Riverside Terrace Washington Heights University Oaks Forest Park Lindale Eastwood Pecan Park MacGregor Estates Broadmoor Pine Valley

It also depends on what type of housing you prefer? Do you prefer the prairie-style homes of Candlelight Estates, Timbergrove or Braeswood? Do you prefer the traditional victorians and tudors of the Rice Area? Westmoreland? Montrose? Are you looking townhome, and if so, are you looking for stucco, traditional, funky?

Hmm... I'm not aware of a Houston/Galveston rivalry.

Here ya go, y'all. A basic summary in one paragraph: Since the 1980s heyday of the prime-time soap named after the city, the idea of Dallas as a capital of conspicuous consumption has resonated around the world. And because the city has not spent the money to effectively promote a broader image, marketing and media experts say, this old view of Dallas not only hangs on, it's also ripe for exploitation.

As I said, a couple of weeks ago, I was in The Woodlands and I noticed that Conroe has extended its incorporated limits further south along I-45 to below SH 1488 (only a mile or so north of The Woodlands management area). Not only that, but their incorporated limits go a couple miles west and east of I-45 alonng SH 1488. So it is very conceivable that The Woodlands could incorporate itself or be annexed by Conroe if not by the COH. I would imagine that the annexation of The Woodlands along with its own natural growth would cause Conroe to give Sugarland a run for its money for the area's third largest municipality in the next decade (assuming annexation occurs in the next decade).

Maybe he thinks they're talking bout Greenspoint.

I agree with the conversion to park land. The intrastructure is already in place in various parts. What the bayou probably needs is: 1) Widening in certain spots so that walkways or boat docks could actually be built 2) Purificiation (sort of like what the city of Chicago did with the main branck of the Chicago River before it splits into the Chicago North and the Chicago South. Murky looking water, as a rule, isn't all that appealing to the masses. 3) Well maintained landscaping along this stretch of the bayou, similar to the landscaping that fronts the Wortham and the Aquarium. I don't think you need to build hotels, restaurants, bars, shops right on the bayou, but close enough to where the bayou is directly accessible from these places. The drawings in the Buffalo Bayou Redevelopment plan demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about. Furthermore, there are businesses in existence already who are under the threat of flooding (like the Brewery Tap, Spaghetti Warehouse...) There's always going to be some risk involved with locating a structure next to a body of water or mountain or what have you.

That's especially bleak news because Houston already has some major state roads that need redoing, and those roads, at least the last time I check, weren't on the list of upcoming proposed projects. Max, Can you give a non-native any idea as to why COH seems to have fewer state roads per capita inside its city limits than many other Texas cities? Was this intentional or just a freaky consequence of history?

I have to admit that's very sweet looking.

I shouldn't laugh but HD's crack about #2 is pretty funny.

I was thinking the same thing, verbatim almost. Heh.

Found this pic from Alexander Personnel (http://www.alexanderpersonnel.com): Thoughts on the lighting? Is this what you all are looking for?

Yeah, I saw them gearing up for it around 5:00 in the evening.

I was thinking the same thing. It seems that there is a definite lack of communication overall. In a city filled with billboards, it would be nice if the DEDA, or the Central Houston or the Downtown Management District could advertise such happenings on one of them. Something along those lines.

The funny part is that downtown Miami only has a couple of buildings (and most notably the BOA Tower) lit at night. So in this, I think it shows that you can do a quality job of lighting the skyline without going overboard. I really think that as far as Houston lighting goes, you have a great opportunity with the following towers: BOA Enron II (can't think of its new name right now) The former Chevron-Texaco Tower Fulbright Tower Houston Center 5 I think proper lighting on these buildings--that is, without going overboard with gaudy neon outlines or what have you--would give the nightskyline a better overall shape. I don't think the lighting as it is now is bad but it doesn't make quite the impact because the wrong towers are pretty dark, and the current lighting is difficult to consume from a distance.

That's why I'm so fortunate that I work downtown. I'm constantly trying new stuff, whether it's in dt proper or Midtown. Hell, there are still places in Old Chinatown that I've yet to experience. BTW, Stallone's has pretty good sandwiches (pizza's only okay). The staff is friendly, and so is the manager (I believe her name is Carol). The place could probably stand to be a bit bigger, as the midday crowds can overwhelm you if you're sitting or trying to walk from one end of the place to the other but otherwise, the setup's not bad. That said, I still think Firehouse Philly's has a better cheesesteak.

A word from the Voice of Reason The simple question is, how urban do you want Houston to be? And by "you", I mean the populace in general. How dense do you want your communities? How clustered do you want your dwellings? Do you still want these communities to have lawns? Do you still want retail centers to leave some room for automobiles while making them more accessible to the pedestrian? Can we build an urban core without alienating and condemning those who, brace yourself, prefer to live in a more suburban environement (and their numbers are immense so it's a serious question)? Personally, my bigger concern is that we create communities that are clean, prosperous and balanced with both residents and retail. That's not entirely the case in Houston (or many other cities), be they urban neighborhoods, quasi-urban or suburban. I'm much more concerned, for example, that the isolated and seemingly condemn status of a Settegast or Acres Homes is addressed more than I am whether or not our CVSes in Midtown hug the sidewalks. Do I recognize the importance of having the latter in terms of creating a satisfactory urban climate for our more urban-minded residents? Absolutely. But density and urbanity alone isn't going to make for a prosperous, well-balanced city. Don't believe me, just take a look at Philadelphia or Baltimore. Hell, look at New Orleans. Even with its collection of urban projects, cities like Houston, Atlanta, Dallas and Charlotte are incredibly spacious (read: undense) overall. While these projects hat are being designed and constructed appeal to a certain segment of the population, the overwhelming majority of the population still seems to prefer a more tradition, even suburban climate. They just want their schools to be better, the roads to be paved and their parks cleaner. Urbanity for sure, but urbanity on Houston's terms, and hopefully with the population at large in mind.

Wow, good catch, TB. It seems the architecture would blend in with the existing area. I was concerned that they would try to forge yet another brick/stucco collaboration in there, like they tend to do with so many intown projects. I can't really say if I like the design as it stands now, as it's really just a drawing and a lot of the finite design detail is hard to digest but at the very least it looks like a break from the other mixed-used projects that are on the table.

I get the feeling that either City Hall or HPD (or both) will say something to the effect of, "Well, we have a specific personnel budget for weekend patrol and we have to prioritize where we place officers and the areas they control." And that's fine but I would think that one or two officers doing a 20-30 minute walk through early on Saturdays would help with something as potentially beneficial as the Market Square Market. And while I did see a pretty good amount of foot traffic DT this past weekend, Deb is right in that only a small percentage (maybe 10-20%) seemed to be moving near the Market Square Area. Maybe if the Chronicle or one of the local TV stations could point out the concerns shared by Deb and other MSq vendors, it would embarrass the likes of Jordy Tollet or Harold Hurt (not that I'm blaming them personally) and prompt someone in a position of authority to put forth the extra effort to help the area become a more desirable locale overall.

Those two towers are nicknamed the "King" and "Queen" towers, and are located just north of the I-285 Perimeter Freeway, roughly four or five miles north of Buckhead.

The simple fact is that when you advertise that doing something will lead to a "boom" or "expansion" or what have you of something, people expect that boom or expansion to happen virtually right away, and when it doesn't, people start seeing doom. The Rail line opened just 15-plus months ago. Toyota Center is not even two years old, and there are several street projects STILL ongoing. Meanwhile, people forget that there's been a growth in retail downtown, an expansion of hotels, a handful of loft conversions and several exciting projects in their aggressive planning and development stages. Patience is very important but it's difficult to preach this while at the same time wowing people with tales of future delights. You're only making them that much more eager. I admit that I'll be becoming more and more anxious about the Pavillions project since it is situated on land that I've long ago thought would be an excellent spot for a high-profile development. I'm anxious to see its impact. In any case, it's likely that someone's going to have to buck up and pay a little more for some of this vacant downtown land (or properties) to get things moving on the residential front. Many of these current landholders have been holding on to their properties for a long time, which suggests that they're more than willing to wait developers out (some for a decade or more). I also like that METRO is looking into being proactive with some of the property it already owns. As a rule, I'm not a big fan of public entities being commercial entities but in this case, METRO can on a smaller scale help develop the overall market for the private sector (and consumer) as well. Kind of like selling ad space on buses or trains. In the end, people simply need to be patient. In 1999, for example, there was virtually NOTHING to distinguish downtown Houston from its appearance in 1986. Thirteen years of blatant stagnation. Now, six years later, you have the makings of a real, multi-faceted downtown. A city of its own. It just needs to flex its muscles a little more so that it can adequately compete with Houston's other cities within a city. That said, the Ballpark Place fiasco is a constant annoyance for me. Like Subdude often mentioned, that area would be a great place for several 6-8 story urban dwellings, making it a sort of baseball-related urban neighborhood. I'll have to wait it out, though!!!

Pineda, your link doesn't work, unfortunately.