GreenStreet: Mixed-Use Development At 1201 Fannin St.

[arrodiii]

I hear that Lucky Strike is lots of fun.

I actually like ([d] do they still even do it?) their weekend brunch. Think it was $17 for a brunch entree, bottomless mimosa's or bloodies and a game of bowling. Fun times. Fun times indeed...

[Pumapayam]

I hear that Lucky Strike is lots of fun.

That awkward moment when you try to save the thread from chaos.

I'd like your post 5 more times if I could.

[Nick_G]

That awkward moment when you try to save the thread from chaos.

I'd like your post 5 more times if I could.

I liked it for you, as I was inadvertently part of the problem.

Anyone ever been to the Yao happy hour? If I recall from walking by they gave some pretty good discounts, how is it there?

[LarryDierker]

Lucy Strike is a bowling alley witha dress code.

how can that work?

their site says they are dedicated to an upscale style. It's Bowlng!

We will continually strive to accommodate those whose style and imagination suit our environment but ask that you please refrain from wearing the following:

• Athletic wear of any kind including shorts, jerseys, sweats, & hoodies (Call Venue for Game day exceptions)
  
• Excessively baggy clothing (Tuck-ins not permitted)
  
• Work boots (Seasonal exceptions)
  
• Headgear (Exceptions for ball caps and stylish hats)
  

• 
  

I just have a hard time associating bowling with upscale.

but i'll be sure to leave my bandana at home and bring my stylish hat instead.

these folks are not dressed for bowling.

My bowling clothes are stained with lane oil and sweat and tears.

Edited February 1, 2012 by LarryDierker

[editor]

I wish Ross and Rachel Niche and RedScare would just kiss and get it over with already.

Keep this thread on topic, or it will be closed.

A lot of the conversation in this thread is getting personal. I don't care if you kids fight, but do it in the back alley of the PM system, not in the public playground of a thread.

[Pleak]

Pleak, if Tokyo or Hong Kong had the sign ordinance Houston has, it still wouldn't have any lights or billboards on its buildings, no matter how many gazillions of people on the streets.

Actually, it probably would get them a lot quicker than Houston would. If you have that many people on the streets, you have how many shop/club/restaurant owners wanting to sell to the gazillions of people. They would all be clamouring to be allowed to advertise. Business owners do have a bit of influence on local regulations in most parts of the world. That would = precious neon lights. But this is all a silly discussion. While I have already stated I am for lifting the lighting rules downtown, my whole point is it will do nothing. Houston will not suddenly vault into the ranks of the 1st tier world class Alpha-male numero-uno top-of-the-heap cities because downtown glows a little more at night.

The whole of Harris county is going to smell of cars and industry if we let. Go check out the "Harris County among Worst Polluters" thread started by Subdude in Houston and the environment. Yes that is what the market seems to want but maybe that's because they just aren't thinking about it or maybe because most of the market is only presented with options that are cars first pedestrians second as samagon was noting even in downtown. In my view it is the city's responsibility to make pedestrian travel safe and enjoyable and I really feel we could be doing a better job of it.

As was mentioned, Houston and Harris County are miles better than they were a few years back. But what else is missing from this is the realization that these "cars and industry" are the whole reason that Houston as we know it exists. If the petro-chemical complex over to the east was not there, Houston would be a mere shadow of itself. All the cool skyscrapers down Louisiana would not have been built due to the profits from the strawberry fields in Pasadena. Houston is not the prettiest place in the world to live, but it is a good place to work. Always has been.

You want the government to tightly regulate the air so it is safe to breathe - then move to California. Oh, wait - there's no jobs there because all the industry is shutting down due to the regulations. (How many refineries have closed in CA in the last 10 years vs. opened/expanded?) But at least the air is clean because it is so regulated by the government there. Oh - wait -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_the_United_States

[Nick_G]

As was mentioned, Houston and Harris County are miles better than they were a few years back. But what else is missing from this is the realization that these "cars and industry" are the whole reason that Houston as we know it exists. If the petro-chemical complex over to the east was not there, Houston would be a mere shadow of itself. All the cool skyscrapers down Louisiana would not have been built due to the profits from the strawberry fields in Pasadena. Houston is not the prettiest place in the world to live, but it is a good place to work. Always has been.

You want the government to tightly regulate the air so it is safe to breathe - then move to California. Oh, wait - there's no jobs there because all the industry is shutting down due to the regulations. (How many refineries have closed in CA in the last 10 years vs. opened/expanded?) But at least the air is clean because it is so regulated by the government there. Oh - wait -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_the_United_States

Haha yea I'm not looking to California for any type of example. They clearly have not got things right.

I also would not be for regulating the industry, nor would Texas allow for that.

Where I would like to see more options, sorry RedScare for making a "wish list" but looking to discuss how Houston spends future money, are commuter rail lines heading into the suburbs instead of new gigantic loop roads. A commuter rail is not really something a consumer can choose if it's not there. Hense not even given an option. A lot of people drive a lot in the city, that's not a criticism that is just true. If we cut down on emissions from personal transportation I believe we can make a difference. I also believe we should be thinking about it and planning for safe pedestrian travel (which yes we are working on but HP is a pretty new project and samagon pointed that it was not fully thought out).

Edited February 1, 2012 by Nick_G

[TheNiche]

Nick, the City of Houston is not contributing any amount of funding toward the Grand Parkway and, as only a miniscule amount of it is within the city limits, the City of Houston doesn't get much of a say about it. The funding source is TXDoT. The constituents that will benefit from it are paying for it via their gasoline taxes to TXDoT, however, have been allowed substantial constructive input.

It is not constructive to say that Houston needs to do this or Houston shouldn't be doing that, without understanding who is actually doing what.

[Nick_G]

Nick, the City of Houston is not contributing any amount of funding toward the Grand Parkway and, as only a miniscule amount of it is within the city limits, the City of Houston doesn't get much of a say about it. The funding source is TXDoT. The constituents that will benefit from it are paying for it via their gasoline taxes to TXDoT, however, have been allowed substantial constructive input.

It is not constructive to say that Houston needs to do this or Houston shouldn't be doing that, without understanding who is actually doing what.

Fair enough, thanks for the input.

I still believe commuter rail lines would be a positive option for the metro area. It's more choice not forcing people to choose, the system we have now is forcing people to choose cars. The TX dot may be funding that but correct me if i am wrong, those are tax dollars that could have been diveretrd elsewhere, you are right in that I am not paying those taxes and I am living in the city limits and as such would not make that decision. Their choice however does still affect us.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Nick_G

[samagon]

Nick, the City of Houston is not contributing any amount of funding toward the Grand Parkway and, as only a miniscule amount of it is within the city limits, the City of Houston doesn't get much of a say about it. The funding source is TXDoT. The constituents that will benefit from it are paying for it via their gasoline taxes to TXDoT, however, have been allowed substantial constructive input.

It is not constructive to say that Houston needs to do this or Houston shouldn't be doing that, without understanding who is actually doing what.

Not to get too tangential in this thread (heh, too late for that!) but the amount of money spent on state and national levels for roadway improvements over the course of a year are WAY higher than the gasoline taxes brought in for the same year. I'd like to see the amortization table that shows the monthly payoff of the loan for the road vs the vehicle miles driven per month for the road, since it isn't as simple as 'we take in x number of dollars in gasoline taxes in a year, so therefore can spend x number".

anyway, there is no way that we're sustaining roadway funding 100% with gasoline taxes.

Edited February 1, 2012 by samagon

[samagon]

I suspect that you are very young, or perhaps simply new to Houston. 30 years ago, during Houston's boomtown years, our air was thick with auto exhaust and refinery fumes, our bayous were so filthy that fish could not live in them, and our highways were strewn with litter and construction debris. All of this with less than one half of today's metro population. Despite unsupported claims to the contrary, increasing auto and plant emissions standards, and a much better awareness of pollution and trash have made Houston cleaner, both chemically and aesthetically, over the last 30 years. More is yet to be done, but pithy claims that Houstonians "just don't know any better" bely your own profound ignorance of the improvements made over the years. I know that it is easy to take potshots at Houston and its citizens. It makes certain people feel enlightened. But, when the potshots are erroneous, it only makes those persons look ignorant.

Oh, no doubt, we've come so far, but that's not to say that we should be content with 'we're better than we used to be'. One has but to look at the bayou projects, and the conversion of old rail lines to hike/bike trails. I remember back in the 80s it was amazing to see the bike trail along brays bayou, and now there's not a bayou (or even a ditch) without a hike/bike trail either in concept, being built, or already there. Look at the number of people riding bicycles through Houston's core, not just the hipsters walking their fixies from coffee shop to coffee shop, but families roving around midtown, or montrose, or the heights by bicycle, that's really amazing for Houston.

But you have to admit, for a place like HP that's meant to be a pedestrian environment to not have crosswalks that flow pedestrians easily from one block to the next, it really makes it uninviting.

More can be done, and more needs to be done.

[TheNiche]

I still believe commuter rail lines would be a positive option for the metro area. It's more choice not forcing people to choose, the system we have now is forcing people to choose cars. The TX dot may be funding that but correct me if i am wrong, those are tax dollars that could have been diveretrd elsewhere, you are right in that I am not paying those taxes and I am living in the city limits and as such would not make that decision. Their choice however does still affect us.

That's all fine and well, but aside from a few apartment complexes that might get built near park & ride stations, commuter rail still requires that people have cars to get from their doorstep to the station. Private automotive transport is still effectively a necessity under those circumstances. With that constraint in mind, I would propose that outer loops are actually synergistic to the effectiveness of park & rides that connect radially into the urban core, and I would further suggest that the greater the number of people that are situated within about an hour of our urban core, the more attractive the urban core is to commercial enterprise. Meanwhile, the availability of inexpensive and easily accessible housing in the suburbs places downward pressure on housing costs throughout the entire region, which enables someone like myself to live in a cool place and still afford to dine out, travel, buy consumer electronics, save money, etc., and in so doing, stimulate the local, regional, and national economy. The benefits of an efficient regional transportation network are diverse; many are indirect and hard to quantify, but I know that they exist.

And samagon, state law specifies that gasoline taxes must be used for highway projects. Texas' is a pay-as-you-go system. The federal government, counties, municipalities, toll road authorities, and special districts can issue bonds, however TXDoT cannot.

[samagon]

And samagon, state law specifies that gasoline taxes must be used for highway projects. Texas' is a pay-as-you-go system. The federal government, counties, municipalities, toll road authorities, and special districts can issue bonds, however TXDoT cannot.

then in that case, even considering that every dime of gasoline tax goes into roadway funding, there is still additional money that is coming from somewhere.

texas consumes 256,552,000 bbl of gasoline per year, at 55 gallons per bbl. and $0.20 per gallon tax.

So, almost 3 billion dollars per year is collected in gasoline tax, and there is just under 8 billion spent (this was taken from 2008).

gasoline consumption:

http://www.statemast...ine-consumption

amount spent in texas for highway funding:

http://www.commonwea...byState2008.pdf

granted, that doesn't take diesel into account, but it's also taxed at $0.20 per gallon, they'd have to collect $5 billion from diesel, I can't find the figures for diesel use in texas, but I can't imagine it would bridge the gap necessary to cover the costs to maintain and build roads.

point is, tax on gasoline and diesel alone do not cover the cost for roadway funding.

Edited February 1, 2012 by samagon

[Pleak]

Haha yea I'm not looking to California for any type of example. They clearly have not got things right.

I also would not be for regulating the industry, nor would Texas allow for that.

Where I would like to see more options, sorry RedScare for making a "wish list" but looking to discuss how Houston spends future money, are commuter rail lines heading into the suburbs instead of new gigantic loop roads. A commuter rail is not really something a consumer can choose if it's not there. Hense not even given an option. A lot of people drive a lot in the city, that's not a criticism that is just true. If we cut down on emissions from personal transportation I believe we can make a difference. I also believe we should be thinking about it and planning for safe pedestrian travel (which yes we are working on but HP is a pretty new project and samagon pointed that it was not fully thought out).

Believe it or not - I am for regulating the industry. This is where government belongs. Not in deciding what to build downtown. I don't particularly like breathing benzene and other byproducts of refining and have quite a bit of personal experience of what runaway pollution can cause. But it needs to be done intelligently and comprehensively. Not what the EPA (and CARB) are presently doing. Regulate the refineries and get rid of all the old grandfathered provisions that have been around for 40 years and have been used as loopholes. But since gasoline/diesel/etc are by nature extremely fungible products, also subject every single drop imported into the country to the exact same standards - require it to be refined at a facility with comparable pollution controls. Would not be terribly hard to verify. Refineries are not exactly small operations - only a few hundred in the world, set up a "verified refinery" system with inspectors - like Nike and friends do at their factories for labor practices. This would eliminate a lot of the arguements that refiners have of if we have to upgrade our old facilities, we will have to close them and go offshore.

Well that was quite off-topic as well.

Oh and as far as commuter rail - wonderful in theory - but in application not so much. Commuter rail would only be able to connect the big hub of downtown with a spoke in the Woodlands, Katy, Sugarland, etc. Trains leave maybe very 30 minutes (at best). You would have to drive several miles to park at the originating station. If you missed it, wait 30 minutes or drive in. And it only works if you work downtown. What about if you work in the Galleria area? Or Greenway Plaza? Or on Allen Parkway? No place at all for the heavy rail to run + too spread out for just one central stop. And yes one day the uptown line will go through - but that is just one more connection to have to time. Which means waiting for some indeterminate amount of time between trains. All this adds up to not a good option.

The existing park and rides and vanpools while less sexy are better options because they are much cheaper and pick up the people actually interested in mass transit. Plus for the most part - you get dropped off very near your business vs. multiple connections and long-distance hikes.

[Pleak]

Oh, no doubt, we've come so far, but that's not to say that we should be content with 'we're better than we used to be'. One has but to look at the bayou projects, and the conversion of old rail lines to hike/bike trails. I remember back in the 80s it was amazing to see the bike trail along brays bayou, and now there's not a bayou (or even a ditch) without a hike/bike trail either in concept, being built, or already there. Look at the number of people riding bicycles through Houston's core, not just the hipsters walking their fixies from coffee shop to coffee shop, but families roving around midtown, or montrose, or the heights by bicycle, that's really amazing for Houston.

But you have to admit, for a place like HP that's meant to be a pedestrian environment to not have crosswalks that flow pedestrians easily from one block to the next, it really makes it uninviting.

More can be done, and more needs to be done.

I remember back in the late 70's, early 80's riding bikes and walking all over Bellaire/SW Houston. (does that count as Houston's core?) So does that mean I was a hipster when I was like 10 years old?

[Trae]

Believe it or not - I am for regulating the industry. This is where government belongs. Not in deciding what to build downtown. I don't particularly like breathing benzene and other byproducts of refining and have quite a bit of personal experience of what runaway pollution can cause. But it needs to be done intelligently and comprehensively. Not what the EPA (and CARB) are presently doing. Regulate the refineries and get rid of all the old grandfathered provisions that have been around for 40 years and have been used as loopholes. But since gasoline/diesel/etc are by nature extremely fungible products, also subject every single drop imported into the country to the exact same standards - require it to be refined at a facility with comparable pollution controls. Would not be terribly hard to verify. Refineries are not exactly small operations - only a few hundred in the world, set up a "verified refinery" system with inspectors - like Nike and friends do at their factories for labor practices. This would eliminate a lot of the arguements that refiners have of if we have to upgrade our old facilities, we will have to close them and go offshore.

Well that was quite off-topic as well.

Oh and as far as commuter rail - wonderful in theory - but in application not so much. Commuter rail would only be able to connect the big hub of downtown with a spoke in the Woodlands, Katy, Sugarland, etc. Trains leave maybe very 30 minutes (at best). You would have to drive several miles to park at the originating station. If you missed it, wait 30 minutes or drive in. And it only works if you work downtown. What about if you work in the Galleria area? Or Greenway Plaza? Or on Allen Parkway? No place at all for the heavy rail to run + too spread out for just one central stop. And yes one day the uptown line will go through - but that is just one more connection to have to time. Which means waiting for some indeterminate amount of time between trains. All this adds up to not a good option.

The existing park and rides and vanpools while less sexy are better options because they are much cheaper and pick up the people actually interested in mass transit. Plus for the most part - you get dropped off very near your business vs. multiple connections and long-distance hikes.

Come on now, commuter rail is nothing new. Many cities have it. It wont he just one straight shot to Downtown. There would he stops along the way, so people can get off and get on another train or bus. It's not all about saving time, but also saving money. And wake up on time so you dont miss the train (which would run more in peak times anyway). Park and rides also stop after peak hours. Commuter rail won't.

[TheNiche]

then in that case, even considering that every dime of gasoline tax goes into roadway funding, there is still additional money that is coming from somewhere.

As I've been saying, it is not meaningful to say that "Texas does this" or "Houston does that". Your data most likely includes federally-funded projects from the general coffers, bond-financed projects by counties which have been approved by referendum, et al.

[Ross]

A few things to correct

Commuter rail in other places runs as often as every 8 minutes, depending on passenger volume.

A barrel of petroleum is 42 gallons, not 55, the state tax on a barrel of gasoline would be $8.40.

[samagon]

As I've been saying, it is not meaningful to say that "Texas does this" or "Houston does that". Your data most likely includes federally-funded projects from the general coffers, bond-financed projects by counties which have been approved by referendum, et al.

My response regarding where the money comes from was in response to your statement below, the way it's worded, it reads that these projects get funding only through fuel taxes, and that explains it all. I'm sure you didn't mean it in a disengenuous manner, that's just how it read.

Nick, the City of Houston is not contributing any amount of funding toward the Grand Parkway and, as only a miniscule amount of it is within the city limits, the City of Houston doesn't get much of a say about it. The funding source is TXDoT. The constituents that will benefit from it are paying for it via their gasoline taxes to TXDoT, however, have been allowed substantial constructive input.

It is not constructive to say that Houston needs to do this or Houston shouldn't be doing that, without understanding who is actually doing what.

The county, which most of us are members, do pay in to funds used for a road we'll never use, while projects we would use are ignored by the county.

That's not to say there haven't been great projects they've been involved with that we do use.

[kylejack]

Not to get too tangential in this thread (heh, too late for that!) but the amount of money spent on state and national levels for roadway improvements over the course of a year are WAY higher than the gasoline taxes brought in for the same year. I'd like to see the amortization table that shows the monthly payoff of the loan for the road vs the vehicle miles driven per month for the road, since it isn't as simple as 'we take in x number of dollars in gasoline taxes in a year, so therefore can spend x number".

anyway, there is no way that we're sustaining roadway funding 100% with gasoline taxes.

Used to be true on the national level, but it's been losing ground: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/

[TheNiche]

My response regarding where the money comes from was in response to your statement below, the way it's worded, it reads that these projects get funding only through fuel taxes, and that explains it all. I'm sure you didn't mean it in a disengenuous manner, that's just how it read.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Different entities take on different projects. As of last year, around the time that the Exxon campus was formally announced, TXDoT (i.e. the State, with a capital 'S') assumed financial responsibility for the Grand Parkway. TXDoT gets its funding for highway maintenance and construction from the gas tax. It was previously unclear whether it would be TXDoT or HCTRA, and at one point, Segment E had been considered for federal funding as a "shovel-ready" project, even though it would've been managed by a state or local entity.

I'm sure that your calculations are more or less accurate and that if you add up all of the highway projects being undertaken by all of the involved entities, they far exceed the revenue of the gas tax. But I don't see the relevance...

[Nick_G]

I'm sure that your calculations are more or less accurate and that if you add up all of the highway projects being undertaken by all of the involved entities, they far exceed the revenue of the gas tax. But I don't see the relevance...

I believe he was talking about this bit.

And samagon, state law specifies that gasoline taxes must be used for highway projects. Texas' is a pay-as-you-go system. The federal government, counties, municipalities, toll road authorities, and special districts can issue bonds, however TXDoT cannot.

and stating money is going into highway projects that could have gone elsewhere.

[Nick_G]

Believe it or not - I am for regulating the industry. This is where government belongs. Not in deciding what to build downtown. I don't particularly like breathing benzene and other byproducts of refining and have quite a bit of personal experience of what runaway pollution can cause.

If we were to regulate it, I would want it to be on a global scale to ensure all markets have similar advantage. If this could be done then I would absolutely be for it and I think all enough of Houston would as well. You do make a good amount of excellent points on how to do it on a local scale that I left out in the quote, if you can fight that battle I would be behind you, but I don't think it's something that would be easily won.

As for downtown developments, an area where I believe we can agree upon is ensuring cross walks are where they should be, are well lit, inviting and work properly. Which was the problem samagon was having at HP.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Nick_G

[Nick_G]

With that constraint in mind, I would propose that outer loops are actually synergistic to the effectiveness of park & rides that connect radially into the urban core, and I would further suggest that the greater the number of people that are situated within aboutan hour of our urban core, the more attractive the urban core is to commercial enterprise. The benefits of an efficient regional transportation network are diverse; many are indirect and hard to quantify, but I know that they exist.

It's happening so at least there is a silver lining.

[Nick_G]

Meanwhile, the availability of inexpensive and easily accessible housing in the suburbs places downward pressure on housing costs throughout the entire region, which enables someone like myself to live in a cool place and still afford to dine out, travel, buy consumer electronics, save money, etc., and in so doing, stimulate the local, regional, and national economy.

Can I quote TheNiche from Swamplot on this topic?

"COMMENT OF THE DAY: MOVING ON FROM MONTROSE

“You wouldn’t have expected that pioneers on the plains would’ve built teepees, would you? In the same vein, developers aren’t building $700k townhomes for the indigenous bohemiansof Montrose (whom cannot afford them and often do not want them or see them as an affront to their being); the townhomes are built for the West U set. You must come to terms with the geographic displacement of your people and the natural resources that once provided for your subsistence.

Resistance is futile, and would only be an impetus for conflicted political outcomes, and co-opted movements that veer into misanthropic endeavors. Prepare yourselves, and move to Houston’s eastern hinterlands.

To remain on your sacred ground, your only alternative is to go back to school and get your MBA, so that you can adapt to the West U man’s strange ways and speak their tongue. But I think that you should go, and be with your people.” [TheNiche, commenting on Comment of the Day: The Origins of the FrankenTuscan Style]"

In all seriousness, I understand your point about wanting to live in a cool place and we all benefit from being able to afford more here than in other places, but I do think we are already very spread out and could let things develop a bit more where they are without being priced out of the market. I know they are looking to be proactive about this but I think it's too soon and that we are already late in developing a commuter rail.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Nick_G

[Pleak]

Come on now, commuter rail is nothing new. Many cities have it. It wont he just one straight shot to Downtown. There would he stops along the way, so people can get off and get on another train or bus. It's not all about saving time, but also saving money. And wake up on time so you dont miss the train (which would run more in peak times anyway). Park and rides also stop after peak hours. Commuter rail won't.

A few things to correct

Commuter rail in other places runs as often as every 8 minutes, depending on passenger volume.

A barrel of petroleum is 42 gallons, not 55, the state tax on a barrel of gasoline would be $8.40.

To run commuter rail from Woodlands at 8 minute intervals? Let's just for fun say it lasts from 6:30-7:30 am. I have no idea of the # of people that commute to dt from there, but its 30+ miles so you would only be able to use the cars once in that time frame. So what is a good commuter train length? Six cars? How many cars would you need to cover morning rush hour? 56? And realistically - how many people would actually be on the train? This isn't NY or London or Tokyo. All of these are commuter cultures. Every 8 minutes is realistic in those places, but in Houston, I seriously doubt anything more frequent that 1/2 hour intervals would be run at first.

I am well aware of commuter rail existing in other places. I have ridden the heavy rail to work in Europe and it works wonderful. It should also not stop all along the way otherwise - what is the point - just run more light rail. Commuter rail should from the Woodlands for instance should stop at Greenspoint and maybe a line to IAH. But no other stops. And it is just as much about saving time as it is about saving money. If you turn a one-hour commute to a 1.5 hour commute - you will lose riders.

I have a 30 mile one-way commute to the Galleria. There is a bus route that picks up at the first colony mall. I take it because it is convenient, and does not take more time than driving. It is about the same. It cuts off the last 12 miles of my commute. I could cut off another 17 miles as there is a companion route from the Ft. Bend County Fairgrounds that also stops at the First Colony Mall and then goes on to the Medical Center. Except they have not coordinated the schedules at all so I would have to wait anywhere from 20-40 minutes for a transfer. So I don't take it even though it would save me an additonal 34 miles roundtrip a day for free. The hassle factor is too great.

But y'all are expecting everybody in the suburbs to be overjoyed about riding heavy rail into downtown with multiple stops along the way (which would increase the time). Then wait to transfer to a local bus (since you can't run heavy rail down Louisiana Street). And where would the billions come from to double track heavy rail out to all of the suburbs? I like playing SimCity a lot also. Especially when you have the "god' mode on and have unlimited funds. IF there was a straight shot to a downtown intermodal staion from the suburbs with reliable transfers (bus/light rail) through downtown every few minutes it might make sense but anything else - people will just drive.

Or they can take the existing Park-n-ride buses which do run on very high frequencies. Don't make mulitple stops till downtown. Generally run at highway speeds. Are very comfortable. Can be scaled up/down very quickly. (just add another bus) And routes can be added to other places besides downtown. I took the 265 for years when I worked downtown. It worked like a charm.

[TheNiche]

I believe he was talking about this bit.

and stating money is going into highway projects that could have gone elsewhere.

Sure. Why not Dallas? Better yet, Frisco!

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

In all seriousness, I understand your point about wanting to live in a cool place and we all benefit from being able to afford more here than in other places, but I do think we are already very spread out and could let things develop a bit more where they are without being priced out of the market. I know they are looking to be proactive about this but I think it's too soon and that we are already late in developing a commuter rail.

Who are you to tell me that I'm spread out? Who are you to tell me that I can afford for the land underneath my apartment to get bid up in price!? You'd best start speaking for yourself. You do not speak for me!

[Andrew Broadfoot]

Redscare

I am one of the people who wants to live in downtown, wants it to be a thriving environment, and would benefit from living in downtown to reduce my commute.

We are having a discussion about what causes people not to live there. I am giving you an example of why two people do not live there and that is the lack of feeling safe, whether it is justified or not. Truth be told anything can happen anywhere, it is the illusion of safety that people flock to. You of course can have your opinion that homeless do not cause people not to live downtown. I am saying that it is a big reason I currently do not live there, combined with the lack of downtown patrols and a community feeling.

We have to ask the question why to people leave at 5. That is not the problem, that is the symptom. Downtown needs to compete with every growing metro area within 2 hours of the city in every category, entertainment, shopping, restaurants and yes the illusion of safety.

Had to edit the wording a little as I am not trying to argue, just stating some observations.

First off, If you want to live downtown than you should consider it. I have lived in downtown and I now live in midtown for the past few years. Sure there are bums. but most of them reside between McGowen and Jefferson, Bagby and Dowling. There are lot of bums on Grey between Baldwin and Smith and that is an extremely attractive area thriving with affluent nightlife. It has been going strong since 2000 despite the frequent bum activity. I have also spent a lot of time around the pavilion area and I hardly ever see bums over there. I think until you have lived down here for a while its really hard to judge the area.

Next. A lot of people that work downtown have families and don't necessarily make executive pay. They commute in everyday from the burbs because it is cheaper to have a roomy house with land for their family. Not to mentions all those activities their children are signed up for. Houses or large space in the Motrose/neartown/midtown/downtown area with land start in the high $400,000.00's and go up from there. Even if the areas look run down the land value is worth a lot down here so to me it does make sense why a large portion of the people that work downtown leave the area after 5pm.

I am on board with you about bringing more to do downtown and I think, like midtown, the area will start to take off.

[RedScare]

Thanks for the post from someone who has lived there, Andrew. I have fought the stereotyping of Downtown for years. I went to school downtown in the 80s, officed there in the 90s and 00s, and have conducted business in downtown for the last 16 years. I have even owned and operated a restaurant in downtown. Invariably, the whining and carping about the "dangerous homeless" population comes from people who neither live nor work downtown. After 7 years of posting on this forum, I know well that no matter how much information is given, and no matter how many resources are devoted to downtown, there will still be those who freak out at the site of a homeless person.

There is really nothing one can do to stop it. A large segment of the population lives in suburban, largely segregated areas, and will never be comfortable amongst those who look different from themselves. The only "urbanity" that they can handle is the faux urban areas built in the suburbs, such as Sugar Land Town Center and Woodlands Market Street. That is fine. I wish them no ill will for that preference. What annoys me is when they venture into downtown and criticize it for not being as sterile and segregated as the faux urban areas they prefer. Some of the complaints even come from people who never come downtown at all! The 'I never go downtown because...' crowd are the worst.

I try to ignore the misinformation posted by the occasional visitors from the clean, new and orderly parts of town. But, then the misinformation and hyperbole begin, and once again I rush to downtown's aid. I do not particularly care that the poster or the moderators think I am bullying. It is more important that a forum that is read as often as this one not be full of uncontradicted misinformation and exagerations from those who cannot handle buildings and sidewalks over 10 years old. So, I respond. Sometimes I even point out that the only time I have been robbed was in Rice Village, not downtown.

Some people simply need to look in the mirror and admit that they are not cut out for downtown living or recreation. It's OK. Downtown will survive without them. Houston Pavilions, maybe not.

[Nick_G]

Had to edit the wording a little as I am not trying to argue, just stating some observations.

First off, If you want to live downtown than you should consider it. I have lived in downtown and I now live in midtown for the past few years. Sure there are bums. but most of them reside between McGowen and Jefferson, Bagby and Dowling. There are lot of bums on Grey between Baldwin and Smith and that is an extremely attractive area thriving with affluent nightlife. It has been going strong since 2000 despite the frequent bum activity. I have also spent a lot of time around the pavilion area and I hardly ever see bums over there. I think until you have lived down here for a while its really hard to judge the area.

Next. A lot of people that work downtown have families and don't necessarily make executive pay. They commute in everyday from the burbs because it is cheaper to have a roomy house with land for their family. Not to mentions all those activities their children are signed up for. Houses or large space in the Motrose/neartown/midtown/downtown area with land start in the high $400,000.00's and go up from there. Even if the areas look run down the land value is worth a lot down here so to me it does make sense why a large portion of the people that work downtown leave the area after 5pm.

I am on board with you about bringing more to do downtown and I think, like midtown, the area will start to take off.

I also appreciate this post. The panhandler conversation (again I am not even sure if they were homeless) was blown way out of proportion and I really don't want to get into that again. I am hoping for the area to take off and since that post was made there have been several discussion to varying degrees about how that could have been or could be encouraged.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Nick_G