Jump to content

Houston19514

Subscriber
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,943

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Houston19514

  1. Houston19514
    I think our parking regulations do allow for centralized shared parking facilities to offset on-site parking, at least in some parts of town. I am generally in favor of letting the market sort things out, but just letting the market sort out parking in areas like Montrose , Washington and White Oak will almost certainly mean adjacent residential streets clogged with parking by patrons of the commercial establishments.
  2. Houston19514
    Not entirely. Part of the reason for parking requirements elsewhere is to avoid burdening nearby residential neighborhoods.
  3. Houston19514
    Those parking numbers assume 6,000 square feet of gross floor area. That might qualify as the world's largest barber shop.
  4. Houston19514
    By a lot, presuming you are talking about legal parking requirements. Downtown has none.
  5. Houston19514
    le Meridien Club Quarters Sam Houston Westin (Inn @ the Ballpark) The Lancaster Aloft If Savoy Holiday Inn is on the list, the Whitehall probably should be as well. That's actually 17 hotels. Just realized that with these 2 newest hotels, downtown will have, I think, 28 hotels. Not so long ago, we had 4 hotels.
  6. Houston19514
    It has been reported that Trammell Crow Co. received an extension on their participation in the Downtown Living Initiative. "Trammell Crow Co. received an extension on its agreement to build a project through the Downtown Living Initiative program. Now, the company is expected to begin construction at 800 Walker early next year, and it must have a temporary certificate of occupancy by May 28, 2020, to receive the incentive, per the Chronicle.https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/08/04/another-downtown-apartment-project-expected-to.html If the Camden project is still in the program, presumably they also got an extension. (FWIW, extensions in these types of programs are pretty much par for the course, and not just in Houston.
  7. Houston19514
    There are inside and outside doors into a vestibule, which in turn leads to both the women's and men's restrooms.
  8. Houston19514
    It has a European vibe. Reminds me of Amsterdam or Berlin.
  9. Houston19514
    The default position of the bridge is the open position merely because there is a lot more marine traffic than rail traffic (more than double). It does not indicate one party having any particular right of way or that the bridge favors the marine traffic.
  10. Houston19514
    Not suggesting we need or are likely to see commuter rail to/from Galveston any time soon, but I'm curious why some are assuming the implementation would require a new rail bridge. Commuter rail would likely be at most 30 minute headways... More likely an hour or more. Could not the current bridge could handle that amount of traffic?
  11. Houston19514
    Again, the private rail service that ended in the 90s never attempted to provide commuter rail service as is being discussed here. It was a weekend excursion train.
  12. Houston19514
    And there is a pedestrian entrance from Fulton Street.
  13. Houston19514
    OMG, who told the Chronicle?
  14. Houston19514
    I think we'll be just fine not having a Texas Music Museum in Austin.
  15. Houston19514
    McKinney National Airport?? That's funny.
  16. Houston19514
    You are correct, Rechlin. ExxonMobil donated 35 acres to the Museum back in 2004. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20041203005318/en/ExxonMobil-Donates-Land-Future-Veterans-Museum
  17. Houston19514
    Not particularly. They started construction just a little more than 2 years ago. Seems like a fairly standard construction time-line. For a point of reference, the Bleu Ciel high-rise in Dallas has been under construction for 3 years and is not yet complete.
  18. Houston19514
    I believe it's south. At one time, they wanted to lease a site at Ellington Airport. Not sure if they've acquired a site. (They wanted to lease 40 acres for $1 per year, but FAA regulations would not allow the city to lease the property for below-market rates.) I don't think an EFD site would give them I-45 frontage, so they must have their eyes on some other property.
  19. Houston19514
    Good news, Brookfield seems more capable of good urban redevelopment than the prior owners.
  20. Houston19514
    Hmmm... remember all the commotion a while back about one university encroaching on another and stepping on toes etc etc etc? I guess UH's motto is "Do As I Say, Not As I Do."
  21. Houston19514
    This townhouse development was posted here on HAIF a while back. I wonder why they didn't name it Cavalcade Station, instead of Fulton Station. It is, after all, located right by the Cavalcade Metro Rail station. In any event, the streets have been poured and utilities are in. They are currently putting up fencing. I suspect townhome construction will start soon.
  22. Houston19514
    Only if you assume that they would have built on their land the same thing that (and no more than) than they are going to build here at TMC3. While it is possible the UT System might have built medical research at their other property rather than invest in TMC3, it does not seem likely. One would expect they would want to keep their medical research facilities concentrated in one area. More importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that the other campus would have consisted of nothing more than the medical research facilities that will now be constructed at TMC3. Quite the contrary. Houston's chasing away of that opportunity was a dark day in our history. I hope Amazon doesn't hear about it. ;-) It doesn't particularly make Houston look like an open confident city that is eager to welcome all.
  23. Houston19514
    It doesn't seem like that court case would be stopping anything. Apparently the Cosmo owners have not actually sued the 40-story developer. Instead, the developer has sought a declaratory judgment to the effect (to over-summarize) that the Cosmo owners cannot assert a claim that the development would constitute a nuisance. The Cosmo owners asked the court to dismiss the developer's suit. Cosmo owners lost. They lost again at the Appellate Court. They have appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Oh, and also, it turns out there is an agreement between the two properties that requires the Cosmo and its owners to cooperate to some degree (Not sure exactly to what extent) with the development of a high rise on the adjacent property. Thanks for the link Urbannizer!
  24. Houston19514
    Great video! Thanks for posting.
  25. Houston19514
    Seriously? We see little if any progress? How can anyone live in this town, be conscious, and think that we see don't see any progress?
×
×
  • Create New...