AtticaFlinch

Or, "Get a Brain! Morans".

Er... so, as I wrote earlier, it has nothing to do with architecture. In this case the architecture is only aiding an already entrenched social more that coincides with the decline of the neighborhood the complex occupies. The architecture and urban design doesn't cause the crime. Having "urbanists" address crime is reactive window dressing. It means nothing but it makes everybody feel warm and fuzzy, like one of Niche's puppies.

The dark-skinned players are scary. ...especially when they're Downtown.

Perhaps these "urbanists" feel crime is beyond their purview or their realm of expertise. Perhaps they feel crime is a policing issue (or an educational issue, or a blah blah blah, etc) and that they'll stick to designing urban space for walkability and other puppy issues that fit within their realm of expertise. Then again, as Red pointed out, the "urbanists" are been left largely undefined. Are they city planners? Are they architects? Are they development financiers? Are they a consortium of all of these and more? What role do the urbanists play? Is there anything they can actually do to prevent or eliminate crime? My past studies lead me to conclude crime is far more complex an issue than can be solved with the design or placement of a building. Crime is a social problem, not an architectural problem. Walkability on the other hand... that can be determined by the design and placement of buildings.

One of the last remaining vestiges of Little Saigon in Midtown no less,,, Mai's proximity to the Firehouse Museum is almost disheartening in its irony.

So then, the baggy clothes have been statistically proven to be threats? You must crap your BVDs every time you go to the Woodlands and some 16-year-old driving his mom's Denali pulls up next to you at a traffic light blaring some Jay-Z.

So... Downtown is Iraq? That's a stretch. Not vacationing in Cozumel because a bunch of Arab-dressed individuals also vacation there would have been a better comparison. There are so many categorically incorrect assumptions with your previous post I don't even know where to begin to address it. My mind is swimming in your abject determination to remain obtuse, but now I'm thinking, "So what?" If you don't want to come Downtown because you're frightened of some stereotypes in baggy clothes, then don't. Good riddance.

And ruralists need to make trailer parks less attractive as locations for meth production.

HUD makes a lot of Urban Development loans... They do more than just housing, you know.

And do what? Implement some new reactive policy that doesn't solve any core problems? Talking about crime in terms of development seems counterproductive and a waste of time. Crime is an issue that goes far beyond urban development and the construction of a bridge, and putting the desires of one community over another less economically advantaged community in the city reeks of elitism. You may as well institute an unwritten rule that the po' folk can cross the bridge to work as house servants and to toil in the fields, but by sundown they'd better be back on their side of the bridge or else.

I'm all about it, and throwing in that free room of furniture from Gallery makes it even more tempting, but something tells me the free room will be the bathroom and the furniture will all have a faint smokey odor. Besides that, something tells me my wife wouldn't care for the house too much. She's quirky like that. There's something about chairs on the ceiling that doesn't sit too well with her.

Speaking of Helen Keller and sports... How do you drive Helen Keller crazy? Give her a basketball and tell her to read it.

Correlation does not equal causation, and all that jazz... Suggesting crime is a byproduct of urbanization is as absurd as suggestion rural living is a relative utopia. And that just ain't true. Crime is a result of many things, examples of which include (but, as always, not limited to) education standards, poverty, reproductive rights, policing priorities and the economy at large. Crime may be exacerbated by human proximity related to urbanism, but it in no way is caused by it.

If you considered yourself a real Texan, you'd know being polite and being politically correct ain't used interchangeably. There's a way to say things wrong and there's a way to say things right. You chose the wrong way. I don't think you did it intentionally, but to continue to defend your poor word choice is baffling to me. Just say "oops" and move on.

I've got a couple shovels and a bag of plaster mix. Me and LTAWACS are all over this. You can sit this one out.

Ordinary places fer real Americans. You walk a fine line, Marksmu. I think what you meant to say, and would have said if you'd taken a second and considered the way you were saying it, is that you'd prefer a wider variety of places that appeal to either a broader demographic or at least the demographic in which you fit than Downtown's current crop of nightspots.

Please clarify the parts I've bolded. This comes across as a thinly-veiled racist rant, and I know that given your post history, you in no way want to be considered racist.

Debbie didn't do Los Angeles.

Yep. That's it. I just looked it up on google maps street view to verify it. The sign's still there on google, though I must admit it's considerably less impressive than your friends had led you to believe. Though as a young boy, it made a hell of an impression on me.

It wasn't a statue. It was a big sign. I remember seeing it all the time when I was a kid as we lived nearby. (It was around in the 80s too.) It's right off the Beltway, north side of town between 45 and 59 on the east bound side (opposite side of the Beltway to Greenspoint Mall). The sign's still there, but rather than a lady, the picture's been replaced with a big arrow or something like that. The building is a carpet store or a furniture store or something like that now.

Perhaps that's why you might attend, but I imagine the residents of Montrose would go because it's something fun to do on the weekend. If you've been to any big event in Montrose in the past few years, be it the most recent incarnation of the Westheimer Street Festival (WestFest Compressed), the pride parade or the Greek Fest, you'd see plenty of locals enjoying their neighborhood's cultural offerings. As far as cultural uniqueness goes, I'm not sure what you're looking for. Do all of Montrose's residents need to be wandering around in assless pants or sporting mohawks to be considered unique? Sure the neighborhood has gentrified, but it's got character to spare.

It's verbal anarchy!

But they weren't caught the first time. They wouldn't be serial murderers if they were caught and stopped after their first murder. So no, it's not impossible unless you're talking to the semantics police - in which case my verbal faux pas would probably be enough to place me on five years felony probation. And I'd probably get kicked out of Rice... or at least out of the Rice English Department.

No, not the same. It's not the 1970s and 80s anymore. But it doesn't make it any less unique simply because you no longer identify with it.

A handful, but I'd venture to say they're the exception to the rule. Besides, there's no way to track that sort of data anyhow. All we can do is track the recidivism rate of people who get caught committing crimes, not all the people who commit crimes period, and certainly not ALL the people who commit crimes multiple times without getting caught. I think your critique should be directed at the institutions that are supposed to reform criminals but instead train them to be better criminals. Or, perhaps your criticisms should be leveled at the society that ostracizes individuals for their past errors, effectively making it impossible for them to get ahead by any means other than criminal means. Or, perhaps you should vent your ire against the reactive government which imposes ridiculous, heavy-handed and draconian laws that do little to make life better for us honest folk while increasing our tax burden by filling our jails with more and more people. Besides, your question can be worded oppositely: How many times have we seen people who've never previously committed a crime commit a heinous act that made the news? (This happens quite frequently - especially with serial murderers and white collar crimes.)