AtticaFlinch

In theory, I have few problems with a name change. I guess what I find annoying is the arbitrary and stereotypically boring suburban nature of the name chosen. I grant there's a Cypress Creek nearby, but 1960 doesn't exactly parallel its path. The name veers too close to a cloyingly nostalgic reminiscence of a rustic and pastoral land of make-believe, and I suppose I'd prefer something more original than that if a name change was deemed necessary. Is there not somebody of historical note we can name the street after?

Thanks for reminding me. I amend my previous post here to reflect that anywhere the phrase "Heights residents" can be found should be prefaced with the qualifier "some". Paternalism, or maybe some oddball notion of a Heights manifest destiny.

You think we all secretly agree with you, but are just arguing for argument's sake? I know you've got a really high opinion of the right and moral position on which you've chosen to make your stand, but really, not everyone sees Walmart as being evil and malevolent, or as in my case think Walmert is no more evil and malevolent than any other corporation. Having money isn't a grave sin. Acting douchey to others who don't share in your bounty is though. Fine, you've got a lot of money. You don't want to shop at Walmart. Good, no one cares. Neither Central Market, Costco nor Whole Foods is far from you. We already know you won't shop at the Walmart, so no harm no foul for you at all whatsoever. However, there are people who will shop there, and frankly their quality of life concerns vastly outweigh any Heights pretensions. Oh, and I really don't know how many times this has to be said, but in yet another attempt to clarify this point, I will repeat it yet again. This Walmart is not only for Heights residents. The Yale Street plot is a strategic location to draw as many people as possible from the entirety of the inner-loop. The people of the Heights cannot for some reason seem to grasp this point, and they seem to continually lose sight of the fact they share the rest of the inner loop with people of various means. And speaking for what's best for those of lesser means based on your emotions and not reason reeks of paternalism and doucheyness. No, everybody pays property taxes. Landlords don't gift their civic obligations to their lessees. The taxes are subsumed by the monthly lease cost. Also, considering all Houston property taxes are paid for by all Houstonians and not just Heights residents, and those dollars are then doled out where they're needed throughout the entire city, no one neighborhood and no one resident has any more say than another. Ultimately, if you paid the property taxes on the one piece of property in question, then you could decide what would go there. Otherwise, unless you're willing to outbid Walmart, you have no say. Are you seriously mythologizing your opposition to an inner-loop Walmart near the Heights as somehow being on par with civil rights, child labor and consumer protection progress? It's no wonder it's been impossible to reason with you. Yours is a quest worthy of Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr combined. Keep fighting then, brave soldier. God speed. It's weird you'd reference Ayn Rand to support your thesis that the government should interfere with a business' ability to do business. Very weird indeed.

I'd suggest Krystal should also build near the new Walmart on Yale, but I suspect it wouldn't be very welcome there. A White Castle would be welcome, but only because a hip, multi-racial comedy featuring Doogie Howser was made about it. Maybe we could rename Yale to Oak-Cedar-Elm-Wooded-Tree Parkway and bring some of that suburban magic to the inner city. I think we're on to something, folks.

I'm sure he's tired of saying it. Many of us are tired of saying it. It's tiring to justify the word affluence, especially as to how the meaning changes along with the context. Walmart's corporate affluence isn't the same thing as a Heights resident's desire to appear affluent.

But what do you think about Krystal? But what do you think about Krystal? But what do you think about Krystal? Does nobody have an opinion about Krystal but me? I'm talking about the Krystal on 1960. It's the only Krystal in the entire Houston area. It's on 1960. 1960.

I've been meaning to tell you, Red, I like "Margaritaville" as much as the next guy, but that shirt is frankly appalling.

I tend to agree with you, PorTENT. That photo is taken from this very website. It even says so on the bottom of the photo.

I agree. Most of my HAIF-based hate for Dallas is contrived for the internet. I actually like Dallas, and I think this building will be a great addition to the city. I look forward to visiting this museum.

To be fair, while the affordability of the housing isn't mentioned, if any of that housing is an apartment complex then you can expect some knickers to get twisted... except for maybe in Baytown. I consider my little portion of 1960 to be in Spring, not the Great Northwest. 1960 is a really, really long road. Also, people from Conroe don't complain because computer technology hasn't yet reached that part of the world. And people from Kingwood and the Woodlands don't complain about a loss of trees because their development requirements ensure a thin veneer of rurality to hide each new construction. Even though most of the forests have been torn down, from the leather-clad, climate-controlled confines of an H2 it still likes like a forest. So few HAIF subjects are about 1960, so we 'burb folks have got to take the opportunity to share our opinion about all remotely relevant topics at one time. In that same vein, when I lived in Memphis, despite the ubiquity of the place, I only ever ate at a Krystal Burger once or twice as I found their entire premise to be stupid. Now that I'm on 1960, and the only Krystal Burger in Houston is rather close to my house, despite my previous conceits I find myself eating at Krystal all the time. Did I mention that the Krystal is on 1960? If not, Krystal is on 1960... so it's sorta kinda relevant to the discussion at hand.

This is the incredible shrinking thread.

I thought I was supposed to fear apartment complexes. Suburban life is so confusing.

I do when I'm in a tejano bar. Actually, I'd love to see more classic-styled R&B/blues joints and jazz joints (playing real jazz) pop up. And as much as I love to hate Austin, I wouldn't mind getting more of the whole Central Texas sound through town on a more regular basis. Unfortunately, the new bars would probably be stocked with the hackneyed Creed-emulating posers instead. But still, cheap drinks.

I agree this is a complex and multifaceted issue, and if I'm not mistaken, I think that was also Marksmu's larger point. By questioning people's visceral emotional responses and highlighting their incongruities in logic, Marksmu appears to have underlined the fact most people weren't rightfully acknowledging just how complex the issue is. I think his analogy made plenty of sense. Then again, I wholly support the construction of the Walmart even though I hate Walmart. (How's that for complex?)

This begs the question of why even bother? The entire enterprise is beyond pointless. 1960 has had clubs in the past, and except for a one or two, they're all gone now. Regardless of the property owners' desires, these clubs will still need to turn a profit in order to keep their doors open. If the 1960 market is already maxed out with clubs, new ones won't stay open long. I did recommend the 25% be based on a rolling average, so while I suppose there's a way to game the system, it'll be expensive for the club/property owner to manage it. On the bright side, with the opening of so many new clubs, it would be possible for Houston's music scene to expand dramatically. Also, with so much competition, drink prices will hit rock bottom. Cheap drinks, live music and an otherwise nicer looking street scene makes my idea a win/win/win situation.

Rev. Billy? I heard he told some people to jump off a cliff. I wonder if they did. The Walmart comment was a joke. I wasn't trying to start another anti-Walmart tirade parade on this thread. I think that's the crux of the issue. Either that, or we don't know how to actuate positive change, and in our impotence, we wash our hands of the whole thing. Or we change the street name hoping public perception is swayed not by actual visual stimuli but by mere suggestion alone. We can call the road 1960, Cypress Creek Parkway or Rev Billy Superhighway, and it doesn't make a difference to the ugly physical reality that is the strip mall graveyard we currently call FM 1960. Unless this situation is rectified, no amount of cutsie, wistfully suburban rebrands will do a damned thing.

Yeah, but once a place like that fails, then either the property owner would have to refill the space, or allow it to sit idle. 0% occupancy is still lower than 25%. If it sits idle too long, it'll go the way of the dodo. Either way, re-leasing it or leaving it idle to then be demolished, would be better for the area than the current program of nothing. I feel the markets would ultimately sort this out. Only so many businesses can be sustained in any community, regardless of the cost of rent. And, it's not as if 1960 isn't already teeming with unsavory businesses. We do, afterall, already have a Walmart.

That's pretty and all, but where's the image of the people who'll actually be in the park? Like this guy:

I realize this. Enforcing corporate responsibility is never popular and rarely welcome. I don't see my solution as practical from a legal nor an economic perspective, but I also don't see any other way to quickly change the face of 1960 otherwise. Mine is a pie-in-the-sky dream; I'm under no illusions of its practicality. That said, it's a better solution than changing the name of the strip to something bucolic like Cypress Creek Parkway. That's not even a band-aid solution. That's a non-solution which may be as equally costly to business owners as my own solution. The only people who stand to benefit from the name change are likely sign shops and print shops. It still leaves the residents, the property owners and the business owners in a bad place. Annnnd, surely to the ire of conservatives everywhere, our tax dollars will be frivilously spent changing all the street signage - whereas my solution leaves the owners of derelict property on the hook for costs. If they can't abide by the requisite changes, Harris County has weekly land auctions. As for mine being an onerous and draconian solution, I'd grant business owners a five year rolling average to achieve 25% occupancy. They can accomplish this in various ways, all of which would benefit the entire community. Either they could lower rents (encouraging more businesses to fill empty spots), improve the property (making the spots more aesthetically pleasing and functional) or increase connectivity between strip centers (easing traffic on the "Parkway" and making the property more attractive to prospective lessees). It forces developers and property owners to give a crap about what they've built after it was built. The only downside I see (aside from the onerous and draconian nature of it) is that it will most likely also limit speculative new construction going into the future - which, considering many people seem to hate strip malls and everything they stand for, may not be such a bad thing. It's may not be entirely practical from a limited perspective, but it is a pragmatic solution to the core problem.

Now that I've got some skin in this game and live off this road, I've noticed the problem isn't simply boundaries and economics. The poor live alongside the affluent everywhere more successfully than what you're crediting to 1960. The problem here is all the derelict structures alongside the road. 1960 is a stripmall ghost town. I think a simple solution would be to eliminate a number of the empty buildings at owner's expense. I'd like the county to require a minimum of 25% occupied capacity based on square footage on a five year rolling cycle. If a property can't maintain that capacity, then the owner should be required by law to bulldoze the structure and plant some pines in its place. Leaving the number at 25% is fair to the owners, but forcing the bulldozing would make land owners and developers more cautious and certain of success (as much as is possible) prior to construction. Plus, this law would virtually require the proper cycling of old, worn-out structures with newer and better construction. Then again, who cares?

You're right. It certainly would have been better to leave the entire lot a parking lot. All or nothing, I say. It's the internet way.

On what do you base this presumption? Walmart has no construction within the inner loop on which to determine precedent. Your presumption is based purely on emotional conceit and contains zero facts. As for the lights, I still don't get it. How is this different than any other thru street connecting Heights to Washington across I-10? Besides (and again), your argument with regards to traffic is against development in general, not against Walmart. Any development on the lot in question will affect traffic, whether it's a Walmart, an HEB or some mixed-use pseudo-urban mid-rise housing development with ground floor retail. It really doesn't matter what it is. You should just be grateful the developers and Walmart are on the hook for most of the costs of infrastructure upgrades. If Yale, which is a cruddy, pothole-filled stretch of pavement, will be redone with no costs further than tax abatements to the Houston resident, then good for us and good for Walmart. It already sounds like they're acting like more than responsible neighbors. And while I've never used it, I'm almost certain there's a dedicated bike trail just for people like you who wish to cross I-10 without risking their lives. Isn't it over by Studemont? I'm certain there's a thread about it somewhere on HAIF. (Edit: Nevermind, 20th filled in the gaps here.)

That was probably lice.

Argumentum ad gym shorts respectability: Thanks for the morning laugh, gto.

What about those tiny tabletop tripods? Has anyone had any experience with one of these? These are clearly meant for hobbiests and people who just want a steadier shot. I take one of these things with me whenever I take a trip. I get much better photos with it.