One Park Place: Multifamily At 1400 McKinney St.

[kylejack]

In some cities, especially New York, the mayor is seen as a salesman for the city. Nothing wrong with that.

Certainly not, but OPP is not the city, but rather a private real estate development that provided funding to the mayor's campaign. If this was Lee Brown I would hardly blink, but Bill White is better than this.

Edited January 28, 2009 by kylejack

[editor]

Certainly not, but OPP is not the city, but rather a private real estate development that provided funding to the mayor's campaign. If this was Lee Brown I would hardly blink, but Bill White is better than this.

I dunno. Sounds like when mayor Bloomberg lends his name to the Port Authority or Times Square or Atlantic Yards or any other developer in his city to help them attract tenants, or even when he appears in NBC, ABC, or CBS network events. They get credibility, he gets a plug for his city.

If White only does it for OPP, worry. If he does it for lots of developers, then it's fine. I think it's too soon to worry.

[crunchtastic]

I wouldn't mind so much if it were a generic "OPP seems like it will be a great place" type thing, but when he gets into talking about the different floor plans, he's gone beyond helpful mayor into salesman territory

Since you brought it up..........I am professionally compelled as a long time marketing hack to dog on that, too. The letter copy, in parts, was just over-the-top cheesy. Embarassingly so.

Granite countertops and wood floors!!! Really now. It's the mayor, not an apartment leasing agent in her little golf cart.

[RedScare]

The Mayor is plugging ALL apartment towers built downtown. In fact, he has plugged EVERY new apartment tower built downtown in the last 40 years!

I applaud his consistency and inclusiveness.

[kylejack]

The Mayor is plugging ALL apartment towers built downtown. In fact, he has plugged EVERY new apartment tower built downtown in the last 40 years!

I applaud his consistency and inclusiveness.

Did he say they were all THE place to live in Houston and extol their various floor plans? And did they contribute to his campaign?

[RedScare]

Did he say they were all THE place to live in Houston and extol their various floor plans? And did they contribute to his campaign?

Yep. Every single one of them.

[kylejack]

Cite. Thanks in advance.

[RedScare]

Cite. Thanks in advance.

Better idea. Name an apartment tower built downtown in the last 40 years that he HASN'T plugged.

No thanks needed.

[crunchtastic]

Yep. Every single one of them.

Smartass.

[TheNiche]

The mayor probably doesn't support the project as blindly as his letter (written very hastely without any thought to the ramifications) conveys. I think he, like most of us, is just anxious to see this long-awaited transformation in downtown... and he's willing to do just about anything to make that happen. This is certainly not Bill White's proudest moment, but he's done a really tremendous service to the city of Houston.

Kinda nice to have a much lower CBD vacancy rate now, huh??

The article cites a drop in citywide office vacancy (which is probably in actuality a reading of regional vacancy). Only two sentences out of that whole article had to do specifically with downtown Houston. If you attribute that drop to the wise management of City government, are you now attributing the increase in vacancy to City government's failure?

As convenient as it would be for the sake of my side of the argument to do like you do and attribute everything bad that happens to crappy government, I know better. Regional office absorption is tied principally to the ebb and flow of the national economy, commodity prices, and the currency exchange rate. A single municipal government has basically no effect.

So beyond fast and decisive actions during Hurricane Ike, White has been a champion for urban improvements for Houston... from the addition of hike and bike trails and the creation of Discovery Green, all the way to important traffic improvements. So let's try to put this letter scandal in context... a yucky looking fly in otherwise clean and perfectly usable ointment.

Are you trying to argue something pertinent to this thread or is this comment of yours just a random off-topic statement?

I'm not going to say that the man has not done good things. I am going to say that he's made some mistakes. If the ointment is good, then great. If there's a fly, that sucks. Neither fact should be ignored.

[TheNiche]

More people living downtown = fewer cars on the freeway, so you're also getting traffic and environmental benefits. I think it IS beneficial to the whole city to promote downtown over other neighborhoods.

What if your job isn't downtown. Only about one out of twenty people in the Houston region are employed there. Using the same logic, maybe the City should be actively promoting new apartment projects in Greenspoint, Westchase, or Uptown.

Also, you can live near downtown and still not use a freeway. What about those other neighborhoods?

Why can't he do both? Promote the entire city and also promote those areas that have the most potential in his view?

The moment a City official starts playing salesman on behalf of a particular developer and to the exclusion of all of that developer's competition is the moment that I call foul.

Likewise, as a property owner in areas not being called out by the Mayor for their potential, he would seem to be diverting attention away from my markets. Here again it comes back to him selling some peoples' properties and not others.

It isn't as though I am actually seeking some kind of favor, either. I'd just rather have a level playing field is all. I don't see it as the business of a City administrator to try and be an opinion leader. Let people make up their own damned minds.

It was probably written by some PR person and just approved by the mayor's office. When the next developer comes along to be promoted it will have flowery language about that developer, too. Everyone is special and no one is special.

When was the last time you ever saw the Mayor of Houston give a property-specific sales-pitch and in the process put down all of that property's competitors? Never.

In some cities, especially New York, the mayor is seen as a salesman for the city. Nothing wrong with that.

That's fine. As long as he isn't a salesman for hire by random real estate developers who need him to smear all the local competition.

If White only does it for OPP, worry. If he does it for lots of developers, then it's fine. I think it's too soon to worry.

Isn't this his last term?

And he hasn't done it up to this point...

[totheskies]

The article cites a drop in citywide office vacancy (which is probably in actuality a reading of regional vacancy). Only two sentences out of that whole article had to do specifically with downtown Houston. If you attribute that drop to the wise management of City government, are you now attributing the increase in vacancy to City government's failure?

As convenient as it would be for the sake of my side of the argument to do like you do and attribute everything bad that happens to crappy government, I know better. Regional office absorption is tied principally to the ebb and flow of the national economy, commodity prices, and the currency exchange rate. A single municipal government has basically no effect.

Are you trying to argue something pertinent to this thread or is this comment of yours just a random off-topic statement?

I'm not going to say that the man has not done good things. I am going to say that he's made some mistakes. If the ointment is good, then great. If there's a fly, that sucks. Neither fact should be ignored.

I don't know if it's worth an answer... you'll just invariably find something wrong with it.

But FYI... I think that Mayor White has done a good job, and I wanted to share that opinion. The thread is technically pertaining only to construction progress about One Park Place, but it seems that the current vain of discussion... which has a massive impact on the livelihood of the development... would seem to apply. The '04 article does not address the specific vacancy rate for downtown in 2004, but since the overall vacancy rate has diminished significantly since that time, it's a reasonable assumption that downtown's vacancy has also diminished.

As for the general information on White's term as Mayor...

Bill White is Mayor of Houston. OPP is in Houston. Bill White helped to build/fund Discovery Green. OPP overlooks Discovery Green. Bill White encourages downtown development. OPP is downtown development.

Should I go on??

Edited January 28, 2009 by totheskies

[RedScare]

Imagine. Developers calling for a level playing field. Oh, the irony.

This is a tempest in a teapot. I do not find the criticisms persuasive. The mayor is touting those projects that HE finds good for the City. If he is not touting your project, it may well be that he does not find it particularly good for the City. The fact that you or some others do not approve of the way he used his bully pulpit, doesn't make it wrong. I'll take a letter on City stationary over a property tax break any day.

It seems to me that the mayor is attempting to make his signature project, Discovery Green, a lasting success, and filling up the first building built as a result of his park would contribute greatly to it. I know that it is common to find the evil intent in everything that government officials do, but I don't see it here. Clumsy approach...perhaps...evil intent, not really.

[TheNiche]

I don't know if it's worth an answer... you'll just invariably find something wrong with it.

Stop backing up your argument with poorly-written mostly-irrelevant articles containing botched data and I'll stop calling it out as such.

But FYI... I think that Mayor White has done a good job, and I wanted to share that opinion. The thread is technically pertaining only to construction progress about One Park Place, but it seems that the current vain of discussion... which has a massive impact on the livelihood of the development... would seem to apply. The '04 article does not address the specific vacancy rate for downtown in 2004, but since the overall vacancy rate has diminished significantly since that time, it's a reasonable assumption that downtown's vacancy has also diminished.

The article you posted from 2004 actually discusses a strategy and elements of that strategy that can be traced back to the Bob Lanier years. There's an article in Cite Looks at Houston about this. I believe they called the strategy, "Filling in the donut hole," or something like that. Like this article, this strategy has absolutely nothing to do with downtown in particular. I like Lanier and at the point during which that article was written, I really liked White, who seemed to be prudently and ethically continuing the strategy. He came off as an honest politician, truly a rare breed.

But it's been about five years and White has faltered a few times now, this incident with the salesmanship being one of them. I can understand if on the balance of it all, you still like him, but it is not apparent from your response that this general opinion of yours has anything to do with the specific topic of this thread.

As for the general information on White's term as Mayor...

Bill White is Mayor of Houston. OPP is in Houston. Bill White helped to build/fund Discovery Green. OPP overlooks Discovery Green. Bill White encourages downtown development. OPP is downtown development.

Should I go on??

Only if you can clarify for me what your point is.

[TheNiche]

Imagine. Developers calling for a level playing field. Oh, the irony.

This is a tempest in a teapot. I do not find the criticisms persuasive. The mayor is touting those projects that HE finds good for the City. If he is not touting your project, it may well be that he does not find it particularly good for the City. The fact that you or some others do not approve of the way he used his bully pulpit, doesn't make it wrong. I'll take a letter on City stationary over a property tax break any day.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you just mean to accuse me and all other developers of being jealous and covetous of those who can finagle the political favors that we cannot. That would be a circumstantial ad hominem...but then as a lawyer, schooled in logic, you'd already know that and are probably just using this fallacious tactic maliciously to manipulate public opinion.

I know you; you aren't stupid enough to actually believe what you're saying.

The truth is that developers may not always like specific rules or regulations, but they'd much rather have to follow a strictly enforced set of codes than have to deal with the whims of fickle politicians or their 'special' constituencies. This goes both ways, not only encompassing the responsibilities of the developer but the responsibilities of the City. It's all about setting clear expectations between stakeholders and effectively managing conflicts of interest. That's a level playing field. And that's how a City encourages development!

It seems to me that the mayor is attempting to make his signature project, Discovery Green, a lasting success, and filling up the first building built as a result of his park would contribute greatly to it. I know that it is common to find the evil intent in everything that government officials do, but I don't see it here. Clumsy approach...perhaps...evil intent, not really.

I understand his motive, to try and prove up demand for this project so as to induce others that would follow. Even still, it does not strike me as good public policy to try and entice people within his own City to relocate to any particular place. It'd be one thing if he tried to promote the City to outsiders and used this project as supporting evidence that the City has broad appeal. It is another to try and shape public opinion as though people needed to be led around like they were sheep. If the project and location is appealing, it will achieve market success of its own merit.

And perhaps he is also concerned about his legacy, but I'm cutting him a break on that because I know better than to haphazardly throw around circumstantial ad hominems. Having said that, most people will not cut him that break, and that he exposed himself to that kind of criticism is itself a misstep that could be criticized as having been poor judgment. And poor judgment is sufficient rationale to argue that a person not rise to further levels of prominence in politics.

[RedScare]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you just mean to accuse me and all other developers (who are complaining) of being jealous and covetous of those who can finagle the political favors that we cannot.

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. You could have stopped there. I did not read the rest.

[JWW]

Stop backing up your argument with poorly-written mostly-irrelevant articles containing botched data and I'll stop calling it out as such.

The article you posted from 2004 actually discusses a strategy and elements of that strategy that can be traced back to the Bob Lanier years. There's an article in Cite Looks at Houston about this. I believe they called the strategy, "Filling in the donut hole," or something like that. Like this article, this strategy has absolutely nothing to do with downtown in particular. I like Lanier and at the point during which that article was written, I really liked White, who seemed to be prudently and ethically continuing the strategy. He came off as an honest politician, truly a rare breed.

But it's been about five years and White has faltered a few times now, this incident with the salesmanship being one of them. I can understand if on the balance of it all, you still like him, but it is not apparent from your response that this general opinion of yours has anything to do with the specific topic of this thread.

Only if you can clarify for me what your point is.

I second that entire post.

[KinkaidAlum]

Better idea. Name an apartment tower built downtown in the last 40 years that he HASN'T plugged.

No thanks needed.

Exactly.

This project has the potential to be monumental. I'd be more concerned if the mayor wasn't pimping it.

[TheNiche]

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. You could have stopped there. I did not read the rest.

^RedScare

Exactly.

This project has the potential to be monumental. I'd be more concerned if the mayor wasn't pimping it.

Hey crunchtastic, as a marketing professional what is your opinion of Kinkaid's ad copy?

[totheskies]

Stop backing up your argument with poorly-written mostly-irrelevant articles containing botched data and I'll stop calling it out as such.

The article you posted from 2004 actually discusses a strategy and elements of that strategy that can be traced back to the Bob Lanier years. There's an article in Cite Looks at Houston about this. I believe they called the strategy, "Filling in the donut hole," or something like that. Like this article, this strategy has absolutely nothing to do with downtown in particular. I like Lanier and at the point during which that article was written, I really liked White, who seemed to be prudently and ethically continuing the strategy. He came off as an honest politician, truly a rare breed.

But it's been about five years and White has faltered a few times now, this incident with the salesmanship being one of them. I can understand if on the balance of it all, you still like him, but it is not apparent from your response that this general opinion of yours has anything to do with the specific topic of this thread.

Only if you can clarify for me what your point is.

I'm not detecting any firm facts from your statements... just personal opinions which happen to disagree with mine. Granted I was only a kid during Bob Lanier's time as Houston's mayor, and I lived in Arkansas so I had no clue what was going on here. But I didn't bring him into the conversation. However, what is an undeniable fact... One Park Place did not exist during any point of Lanier's time as mayor, so that has no relevance to this thread whatsoever. IMO the facts and opinions about Bill White would be considered relevant to the thread topic b/c OPP came to being during his time as mayor. I will look up the "Cite" article and compare it to the one that I posted.

Since you're so insistent for clarity and accuracy from my opinion... why don't you summarize the content of this thread over the past three years, and then explain to me how my opinions don't fit within its context. To me the article, and the explanation that I gave are perfectly relevant.

Edited January 29, 2009 by totheskies

[crunchtastic]

^RedScare

Hey crunchtastic, as a marketing professional what is your opinion of Kinkaid's ad copy?

No offense to Kinkaid, but monuments typically don't need pimping. People tend just to show up anyway.

However, big bonus points for avoiding empty words and phrases such as: world-class, innovative, ground-breaking, unique

[totheskies]

What if your job isn't downtown. Only about one out of twenty people in the Houston region are employed there. Using the same logic, maybe the City should be actively promoting new apartment projects in Greenspoint, Westchase, or Uptown.

Also, you can live near downtown and still not use a freeway. What about those other neighborhoods?

Our public transportation grid is centered on downtown. So if you live in downtown, the chances of you having more commuting options BESIDES your personal vehicle are greatly increased. So again, that's a change that is benefitting not only downtown, but the city as a whole.

The moment a City official starts playing salesman on behalf of a particular developer and to the exclusion of all of that developer's competition is the moment that I call foul.

It isn't as though I am actually seeking some kind of favor, either. I'd just rather have a level playing field is all. I don't see it as the business of a City administrator to try and be an opinion leader. Let people make up their own damned minds.

When was the last time that any project, good or bad, became a success/failure without other people's input? Should we really expect our elected officials to never share their opinions on anything?

The letter is what it is... and to me, it's a good thing. If we can boost the overall population of downtown Houston... whether I personally live there or not... it's a good thing for everyone. Especially in a times like these when suburban communities are in real crisis, people are opening their eyes to the potential benefits of living downtown. OPP is the most aggresive residential we've had in a long time, and IMO there's no reason why we shouldn't support it.

Edited January 29, 2009 by totheskies

[pineda]

interesting follow-up piece in the Houston Chronicle

[TheNiche]

I'm not detecting any firm facts from your statements... just personal opinions which happen to disagree with mine. Granted I was only a kid during Bob Lanier's time as Houston's mayor, and I lived in Arkansas so I had no clue what was going on here. But I didn't bring him into the conversation.

You introduced as a premise a poorly-written article from five years ago which had little bearing on downtown in particular and which really described an unoriginal strategy that had been around for a very long time. It wasn't really on-topic. Not having read a lot of local history, you lacked the depth of knowledge to connect the dots and put it into context. So I actually bothered to cite my sources and filled in the history for you. (Btw, our circumstances are similar in that I was also a kid during the Lanier administration and was living about as far southwest of Houston as you lived northeast of it.)

In the course of refuting a premise on the basis of relevence, it is often necessary to describe how it is irrelevent. The negation of your premise would appear to be off topic in and of itself (i.e. if read out of context), but insofar as it negates your already irrelevent premise, it cleans up and refocuses the argument. Once arguers have accepted that the original premise is immaterial to the conversation, we can just forget that the faulty premise or my refutation of it ever existed.

However, what is an undeniable fact... One Park Place did not exist during any point of Lanier's time as mayor, so that has no relevance to this thread whatsoever.

I agree that Lanier has no relevance to this thread. However, in the course of refuting a premise on the basis of relevence, it is often necessary to describe how it is irrelevent. The negation of your premise would appear to be off topic if read out of context, but insofar as it negates your already irrelevent premise, it cleans up and refocuses the argument. Once arguers have accepted that the original premise is immaterial to the conversation, we can just forget that the faulty premise or my refutation of it ever existed.

IMO the facts and opinions about Bill White would be considered relevant to the thread topic b/c OPP came to being during his time as mayor. I will look up the "Cite" article and compare it to the one that I posted.

Since you're so insistent for clarity and accuracy from my opinion... why don't you summarize the content of this thread over the past three years, and then explain to me how my opinions don't fit within its context. To me the article, and the explanation that I gave are perfectly relevant.

If this were a thread about people moving to Houston, and I said that I moved to Houston in mid-2002 (during the Brown administration), might you believe that former Mayor Brown was relevant to the conversation? That two events have overlapping timelines does nothing to prove relevance.

Mayor White is relevant to this thread because he has been involved in the creation of the park, without which One Park Place would not have been built. Mayor White is relevant to this thread because he was approached by a developer seeking tax abatements and White turned them down. Mayor White is relevant to this thread because he acted as a salesman for One Park Place in an official capacity as Mayor.

There are plenty of reasons to discuss Mayor White's involvement in this project. However your argument is so sloppy that I'm not sure what you're really trying to get at. And when I asked you to clarify what your point was, you only answered my question with a question.

[totheskies]

^^Ok, points taken. This thread is about One Park Place... originally we began by speculating whether or not the building would be consturcted. Once it became a reality, we began to monitor the building's progress, and talk about it's future implications to downtown and the rest of the city. The most recent topic of discussion is having to do with an ad showing that Mayor White is in support of One Park Place. After reading a couple of posts in regards to this situation, I posted the following...

"The mayor probably doesn't support the project as blindly as his letter (written very hastely without any thought to the ramifications) conveys. I think he, like most of us, is just anxious to see this long-awaited transformation in downtown... and he's willing to do just about anything to make that happen. This is certainly not Bill White's proudest moment, but he's done a really tremendous service to the city of Houston."

The article that came afterward may have been poorly written, but I only posted it to show that some very positive things have occurred during White's time as Mayor... and OPP can be included as one of those things. Granted, One Park Place is not a functional residence (at least not yet), but so far it seems to have had a positive impact on Downtown, and in my personal opinion, it's a vast visual improvement over the surface parking lot that was there in 2005. So my point was to simply say that I understand why the Mayor would write such a letter, even if it was not a good political move.

Do we need anything else to be clarified?

Edited January 29, 2009 by totheskies

[TheNiche]

Our public transportation grid is centered on downtown. So if you live in downtown, the chances of you having more commuting options BESIDES your personal vehicle are greatly increased. So again, that's a change that is benefitting not only downtown, but the city as a whole.

Yeah, because nobody uses public transportation the way that rich people use transportation! They're willing and able to pay for the most expensive apartment units in the whole Houston region and they're going to ride a bus somewhere.

I will buy that many of the residents there are likely to walk to work. Even then, once you subtract out a reasonable number of physically vacant units (including corporate units being used basically like on-call hotel suites or foreign nationals using their unit as a second home), units occupied by persons that aren't in the labor force or that are unemployed, and account for lower average household sizes typical of apartments, there just aren't as many people left over that generate trips as you might think. And out of the remaining commuter households, how many multi-person households are going to have one person that works downtown and the other person that works somewhere else? Also, how many will commute to work on a regular rush-hour schedule such as they might impact congestion?

Ok, now out of those, what percentage will also work within a part of downtown that is considered within a reasonable walking distance? Houston is not a game of Sim City. The population just doesn't sort themselves geographically by employment location. They sort themselves foremostly on the basis of private preferences which are not necessarily aligned with social preferences.

When was the last time that any project, good or bad, became a success/failure without other people's input? Should we really expect our elected officials to never share their opinions on anything?

By other people, I assume you are specifically referring to politicians and not to hired professionals such as engineers, architects, etc. If that assumption is valid, then the answer is that projects occur all the time in a political vacuum. You just aren't aware of them because they don't get any press.

The letter is what it is...

Wow, that's the most brilliant thing I've heard since my sixth grade math teacher pointed out that 'A is A'.

Quick, someone award this guy an honorary Ph.D!

If we can boost the overall population of downtown Houston... whether I personally live there or not... it's a good thing for everyone.

Beware of making such sweeping statements. The Houston region has nearly six million people living here. Not all of them will agree with you.

There was a time in my past life when I used to design questionaires for telephone surveys, and you'd be amazed at how people interpret such questions or the open-ended feedback that they'd give. I am confident that there is not a single question that could be dreamed of where a total consensus could be achieved.

Moreover, popular opinion does not equate to correctness.

Especially in a times like these when suburban communities are in real crisis, people are opening their eyes to the potential benefits of living downtown.

There are suburban and urban communities which are in crisis. Please explain how this favors urban living. I know plenty of townhome developers who may disagree with you.

OPP is the most aggresive residential we've had in a long time, and IMO there's no reason why we shouldn't support it.

The award for aggressiveness goes to Mosaic for having tried to develop as many condos in each seperate tower (next door to one another) as have ever been developed in any other single condo project in Houston's history, and in a subpar location. One Park Place is modeled after Museum Tower and was located on a Class A++ site.

I do agree that there is no reason not to support it. Nor is there a compelling reason to support it over other projects. Aggressiveness is not in and of itself admirable. Competence is, however. If Museum Tower was developed and is managed competently, then there is no need for support by public officials. It will stand on its own.

[TheNiche]

After reading a couple of posts in regards to this situation, I posted the following...

"The mayor probably doesn't support the project as blindly as his letter (written very hastely without any thought to the ramifications) conveys. I think he, like most of us, is just anxious to see this long-awaited transformation in downtown... and he's willing to do just about anything to make that happen. This is certainly not Bill White's proudest moment, but he's done a really tremendous service to the city of Houston."

How is it relevant to any of the various on-topic or tangential issues discussed in this thread that "[bill White] has done a really tremendous service to the City of Houston?" Maybe that's true, on the balance of things. It really comes down to individual judgement. But what matters here is specifically whether his promotion of this project over others in downtown Houston is ethical or not.

Granted, One Park Place is not a functional residence (at least not yet), but so far it seems to have had a positive impact on Downtown, and in my personal opinion, it's a vast visual improvement over the surface parking lot that was there in 2005.

It was not a surface lot.

One Park Place replaced a park which was privately-owned and maintained by Crescent Real Estate. Crescent sold the park to Hakeem Olajuwon and Hakeem did a 99-year lease to Finger for their building, which necessitated the destruction of the park.

So my point was to simply say that I understand why the Mayor would write such a letter, even if it was not a good political move.

Do we need anything else to be clarified?

I myself understand his intent, but he deserves to be called out for questionable ethics and poor execution. I wouldn't be so quick to criticize, had I bothered to at all, if he had published a letter without using City letterhead.

[totheskies]

Yeah, because nobody uses public transportation the way that rich people use transportation! They're willing and able to pay for the most expensive apartment units in the whole Houston region and they're going to ride a bus somewhere.

So by this, you're saying that just b/c someone is rich, that means that they do not use public transportation? Or that (more specifically) rich people don't ride the bus? I suppose having money will give you more options than someone that is poor and doesn't own a car, but it does not guarantee that the person will not ever ride the bus. They may be concerned about their carbon footprint, or may not like to drive, or they may be too miserly to hire a private driver. If you're going to be so adamant about accusing others of making sweeping generalities, you should avoid making them yourself.

I will buy that many of the residents there are likely to walk to work. Even then, once you subtract out a reasonable number of physically vacant units (including corporate units being used basically like on-call hotel suites or foreign nationals using their unit as a second home), units occupied by persons that aren't in the labor force or that are unemployed, and account for lower average household sizes typical of apartments, there just aren't as many people left over that generate trips as you might think. And out of the remaining commuter households, how many multi-person households are going to have one person that works downtown and the other person that works somewhere else? Also, how many will commute to work on a regular rush-hour schedule such as they might impact congestion?

Ok, now out of those, what percentage will also work within a part of downtown that is considered within a reasonable walking distance? Houston is not a game of Sim City. The population just doesn't sort themselves geographically by employment location. They sort themselves foremostly on the basis of private preferences which are not necessarily aligned with social preferences.

Your scenarios are valid, but they don't really address the statement that I made. I only said that living in downtown will provide an increased number of transit options, and I did not go on to imply that every resident would use those options 100% of the time, or that all residents would be able to use them. But an increase in downtown residents... whether it may be 10 more or 10,000 more... it's still an increase.

By other people, I assume you are specifically referring to politicians and not to hired professionals such as engineers, architects, etc. If that assumption is valid, then the answer is that projects occur all the time in a political vacuum. You just aren't aware of them because they don't get any press.

I guess you can assume that, but it's not what I meant. "Other people" could be anyone who is not directly involved with the project.

Beware of making such sweeping statements. The Houston region has nearly six million people living here. Not all of them will agree with you.

There was a time in my past life when I used to design questionaires for telephone surveys, and you'd be amazed at how people interpret such questions or the open-ended feedback that they'd give. I am confident that there is not a single question that could be dreamed of where a total consensus could be achieved.

Moreover, popular opinion does not equate to correctness.

My sincerest of apologies for not adding the requisite IMO

There are suburban and urban communities which are in crisis. Please explain how this favors urban living. I know plenty of townhome developers who may disagree with you.

Which illustrates how deep the recession has gotten. Of course I made another general assumption about our housing crisis, and I will shamefully admit that I am uninformed. Maybe you can help me. Which areas have seen more forclosures over the last 18 mos.? Suburbs, or urban areas? Is the same true even when you account for the fact that more people live in the suburbs?

The award for aggressiveness goes to Mosaic for having tried to develop as many condos in each seperate tower (next door to one another) as have ever been developed in any other single condo project in Houston's history, and in a subpar location. One Park Place is modeled after Museum Tower and was located on a Class A++ site.

I do agree that there is no reason not to support it. Nor is there a compelling reason to support it over other projects. Aggressiveness is not in and of itself admirable. Competence is, however. If Museum Tower was developed and is managed competently, then there is no need for support by public officials. It will stand on its own.

Again, that's my opinion, FWIW

Mosaic is a very aggressive project... it's been built in an area that's transitional at best, and it's a huge number of units. But I'm not sure that I would imply that the developers of Mosaic are incompetent just b/c they are willing to take a risk. We don't know what the Almeda area will be like in 10 years, b/c we're not there yet. But what we do know is that enough people live in/around the Museum District, Hermann Park, and Third Ward to warrant the possibility of a residential development in the area. So if you're going by population trends of the surroundings, way fewer people live in proximity to OPP than live in proximity to Mosaic. Again, as a classical singer, I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking that I know how to assess risk within a given real estate profile, but the current lack of residential population would assume that OPP was a "bold move"... at least more bold than your avg. Houston area development.

[musicman]

I myself understand his intent, but he deserves to be called out for questionable ethics and poor execution.

well he is "the hope"

[HtownWxBoy]

well he is "the hope"

OMG I can't believe people are making controversy over that "HOPE" thing... some people just need to complain or they stop living.

... and to get back on topic....

One Park Place looks great now that it's almost finished!