Houston19514

Excellent question. I've been trying to figure that one out too. For the sake of Dallas, I hope they don't end up with another Stonehenge.

Interesting. I had noticed the "request for variance" signs but never stopped to read them. I noted that the summary says the two new restaurants will both be adjacent to Kirby on the block west of Argonne, but the map shows that clearly is not the case. Only one of the restaurants is adjacent to Kirby on the block west of Argonne. The other is on the block east of Argonne, 1 block off of Kirby. I wonder if they already know what the two new restaurants will be.

Source for the new location.

I second RedScares post above. In addition, Notre Dame has been turning down invitations to major conferences left and right for many years. I have no idea if the PAC 10 ever tried, but, really, even they are trying to keep things making some geographic sense.

Nonsense. That's easy for everyone to say and believe to the core of their souls as long as Baylor in fact does not beat the Longhorns and Aggies every year and is not the reigning Big XII champ. But if they did and were... it would be an entirely different story. The experience of the last month or so should make it clear beyond question that only one thing matters in conference alignments and college football affiliations and that is the ability to bring money to the table. If Baylor had that ability, nobody in Berkeley or LA would bat an eye at accepting them into the PAC 10/11/12/16/24.

and here I thought you were just being sarcastic.

Wow. Awesome pics. Thanks for posting.

Actually, I think there is the possibility of incorporating the movie studio into either Option 2 or 3 (and the Reliant Park website refers to them by numbers, not letters. EDIT: The master plan seems to only mention the movie studio in connection with Option 3. (I thought I had read somewhere that it could be part of either Option 2 or 3.) So to be safe, just vote for Option 3. That's the coolest option anyway, if we can find a way to pay for it...

Yes, I disagree with quite a lot of it, but more importantly, I've actually calculated the numbers, using your preferred numbers and assumptions. 1) My summary of your plan is not disingenuous. It is your plan to continue maintaining for X years followed by the magical appearance of a fully private scheme for the dome that is disingenuous. Given that we've been looking for a private sector plan with private sector money for 10 years without success or anything close to success, I think we can pretty safely say that the chances of a fully-privately funded plan for the Dome is not going to happen. Not with a sufficient degree of likelihood to bother calculating. Therefore, for planning purposes, the necessary, not disingenuous, end-game of theNiche Plan is demolition, or as I said in earlier posts, maintaining in perpetuity. 2) I have indeed understood present value all along and have demonstrated as much. It is you who thought that the present value of 88 Million 2055 dollars was even a relevant number. Further, I acknowledged that there will be some difference between the inflation factor and the discount rate, but as I stated, I would not expect it to be a large difference. The existence of the difference is why I called it a shortcut. Calculations follow showing various differences between the inflation rate and the discount rate. None of them, from a .1% difference to a full 2 percentage point difference show a result in which theNiche Plan is financially preferred to Plan A (immediate demolition). 3) The 45 year present value analysis you presented earlier was fundamentally incorrect, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Nobody cares what the Present Value is of 88 Million 2055 dollars. It could not possibly be less relevant to this discussion. Putting that aside, let's take a look at your statement that even a .1% difference between the discount rate and the expected inflation rate. Earlier you told us a discount rate in the low 3's would be most appropriate. I do not disagree with that (HOORAY for agreement!) So let's use a 3% discount rate and, then a 2.9% inflation rate. Let the calculation begin: $88 Million in current cost adjusted for the expected annual inflation rate of 2.9% will be approximately 309,570,000 in 2054 dollars. Then we apply the 3% discount rate to that to come up with the 2010 present value = approximately $84,318,000. That is the Present Value of the 2054 cost of demolition. Note my shortcut answer of "close to $88 Million" is several orders of magnitude closer than your calculation of $9.3 Million. Further note that, when added to the 44 year cost of maintaining the Dome, Plan A is financially far better than theNiche Plan. So your statement that even a .1% positive difference effectively makes your plan financially superior to Plan A is clearly and demonstrably (and in fact demonstrated to be) false. Let's try it with a larger difference between the discount rate and the inflation rate. Let's try a 3% discount rate and a full percentage point lower inflation rate (rather than the .1% we tried above) for a 2% inflation rate. The 2054 cost of demolition will be approximately $210,325,000. Applying the 3% discount rate gives us a 2010 present value of approximately $57,286,507.05. Then we have to add the cost of 44 years of maintenance: $2 Million per year, inflation adjusted for 44 years, discounted back to present value with theNiche's preferred discount rate of 3%: almost $70 Million. Total 2010 present value cost of Plan A: $88 Million. Total 2010 Present Value cost of theNiche Plan: approximately $127 Million. If my calculations are incorrect, I am open to correction. Let's try an even bigger investment premium over the inflation rate: 4% discount rate and a 2% inflation rate. That would give us a 2055 cost of demolition of $210,325,000 and a 2010 present value of $37,447,598.21. The present value of 44 years of maintenance using these numbers: $58,131,000. Total present value of theNiche Plan: approximately $95.5 Million. Present value of Plan A: $88 Million. How about a 3% discount with a 1% inflation rate: The 1% inflation rate will lead to a 2054 cost of $136,340,000. Applying the 3% discount rate gives us a 2010 PV of: $37,135,000. The present value of 44 years of maintenance using 1% inflation and a 3% discount rate: $56,744,000. Total 2010 PV cost of theNiche Plan: $93,879,000. Total 2010 PV cost of Plan A: $88 Million. Where have I gone wrong with these calculations?

The movie studio concept is included in plan C I believe. It just wouldn't be the whole building. By the way, there is a bunch more information available on Reliant Park's website

It must be fascinating living in the Alice in Wonderland world of theNiche, where up is down and down is up, where ignoring another's statements means they didn't happen, where "your troll-like behavior" is not "making it personal", where changing the subject is addressing criticisms, and where words mean only what theNiche chooses them to mean, nothing more, nothing less. For the record, here is a brief recap: -- First, theNiche told us that, rather than spend $100 Million (the number being bandied about at the time) to demolish the dome and replace it with green space, we could just mothball the dome AND build, e.g., another Discovery Green. -- I pointed out that such a plan assumes that mothballing the Dome has zero cost. -- theNiche denied assuming zero cost (even though his stated plan indeed did assume zero cost; anyone can look at the number and see that); but then justified it by assuming, with no evidence or quantification, that the cost of maintenance is "not huge" but that, somehow adding in the costs of maintenance did not effect the "gist of things." (Never mind that if you have fully allocated your pot of money to building a new Discovery Green, the fact that some of that money instead has to be used to maintain the Dome, by the laws of mathematics changes the gist of things.) -- I then pointed out that Harris County has been basically doing less than what theNiche called for in maintaining the Dome for the past 10 years or so (less, in that there has been no power-washing and parts of the exterior are rusting...) and that according to the folks running the place, it is costing us $2 Million per year. I further stated that: "For an accurate comparison of the cost of your proposal, we would have to calculate how large of a fund would be required to provide $2 Million+ per year in perpetuity. I'm thinking the amount required to fund that annual expenditure will be not much less than the $88 Million cost for demolition and replacement with green space/major water feature etc. In short, it really makes no financial sense to continue spending money merely maintaining a structure with no intention to ever use it." (Never mind my posts such as this, theNiche proudly pronounces in his most recent post that HE is the only one who has posted any calculations and invites me to offer up alternative comparison of mothballing to plan A in present value terms... Never mind reality, Niche, it's not important.) -- Then theNiche tells us that the present value of maintaining the Dome for 45 years is $35.5 Million. -- I point out that his initial proposal would actually require the maintenance of the Dome in perpetuity, not just 45 years. But even assuming we only maintain it for 45 years, I point out... then what. We still have a Dome. Do we then tear it down? I point out that with the current demolition plan of $88 million, the present value of a demolition 45 years from now will be approximately $88 Million, meaning his maintenance and deferred demolition plan has an actual present value cost of $124 Million, not the $35.5 Million he claimed (another presentation of alternatives and calculations proactively presented by someone other than theNiche. Pesky reality again.) I did not even bother at this point to correct his flawed present value calculation for 45 years of maintenance; it didn't seem sporting. -- Then theNiche tells us that the present value of $88 Million spent in 45 years at a 5% discount rate is $9.3 Million, not the $88 Million I had (proactively) presented. -- True but completely irrelevant. I pointed out that his calculation would provide $88 million in the year 2055 for a project that would, by that time, cost much more than $88 Million. TheNiche's calculations foolishly assume that one could accomplish in 2055 the exact some project for the exact same nominal dollar amount as the project would cost us in 2010. -- theNiche's response: change the subject. ramble on about "the rule on inflation", which discount rate he chose and that a 3% rate would actually be more realistic (completely oblivious to the fact that a 3% discount rate would actually weaken his argument, not strengthen it.) -- I again pointed out that his calculations in fact did not deal with inflation and that his calculations would provide us with $88 Million in the year 2055 to accomplish a project that would cost much more than that in 2055 dollars, and AGAIN posted my shortcut calculation that the Present Value of the 2055 cost to perform the demolition and green space project would be approximately $88 Million. -- theNiche's response: tells us that his treatment of inflation is proper. (Never mind that he has not treated inflation at all, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.) Then he allows that at $2 Million per year, $88 Million in 2010 dollars will last 44 years. -- I point out that in effect (although he didn't realize it), this is saying that the present value of the maintenance expenditures for 44 years is $88 Million, not the $35.5 Million for 45 years he had told us before.) and again point out the the correct present value of the 2054 cost of demolition/green space is another $88 Million, so that the present value cost of theNiche's proposal (even with shortening it to 44 years, rather than perpetuity) is $176 Million vs. the cost of demolition/green space now of $88 Million (Note the proactive presentation of calculations that, in theNiche's alternative reality only HE has done, . . . that pesky reality again.) -- Then theNiche continues to ignore my criticism of his calculations and implausibly presents a THIRD calculation of the present value of maintenance, this one an attempt at calculating the present value of the cost to maintain in perpetuity. Hilariously, it is some $30 Million LESS than the present value of the cost of maintaining the dome for 44 years. He again states, without evidence or support, that inflation is dealt with in his calculations. Oh, and theNiche tells us that it does not matter what the dollar will be worth in 2054. -- I then point out his three wildly divergent present value calculations for maintenance, and point out again that he has completely failed to account for rising costs and AGAIN explain the flaw in his calculations: "As I've demonstrated in earlier posts, your flaw is in your input. In the case of the demolition costs, you cannot determine the 2010 value of a payment to be made in 2054 by discounting the 2010 cost of the project to be paid for. You have to discount the 2055 cost to be paid for. Hence, the approximate 2010 present value of the cost of demolition/plaza construction in 2054 is $88 Million. Likewise, to determine the present value of a stream of payments that will be required to fund maintenance for 44 years, one does not plug in the 2010 payment. One has to estimate the rising costs, then discount the $2 Million per year payment stream after adjusting the payment stream for inflation. When you discount that inflation-adjusted payment stream, you will come up with an approximate present value of, $88 Million for 44 years of maintenance." -- theNiche's response: Well, those who have followed theNiche's antics for a number of years will not be surprised to learn that he responds by continuing to ignore the well-founded criticisms of his calculations, declare that he is the only one who has offered up calculations to be considered, that he has addressed all my criticisms and declares them unfounded and challenges me "if I am wrong show me right", laughably ignoring the fact I've done so several times, but here, once again, is the short version. The cost of plan A (demolition and green space) in 2010: $88 Million. Annual cost of maintenance: $2 Million theNiche's proposal (as revised): Maintain the dome for 44 years, then tear it down. Shortcut calculation of the present value cost of 44 years of maintenance: $88 Million. Shortcut calculation of the present value cost of accomplishing Plan A (demolition and green space) in 2054: $88 Million. Total present value cost of theNiche's proposal: $176 Million (vs. $88 Million for Plan A). In his last flailings, theNiche was trying to confuse matters by throwing out alternative numbers. So let's run with some alternative numbers: theNiche suddenly wanted us to use $600,000 as the annual cost of maintenance and some lower number for demolition and greenspace. (It does not really matter what number we use for the demolition/greenspace costs, because the relative calculations come out about the same; so let's just go with the bare demolition cost of Texas Stadium: $6 Million. In that case, the cost of the new Plan A would be: $6 Million PV cost of 44 years of maintenance: approximately $26,400,000 PV cost of Plan A in 2055: $6 Million PV cost of theNiche's plan: $32,400,000 (vs. $6 Million for the 2010 cost of Plan A) Any way you slice it, maintaining the Dome for 44 years and then demolishing will cost FAR more than demolishing it now, both in present value terms and in total nominal dollars. It is an inescapable fact of mathematics. For those interested in the shortcut pv calculation I am using, let me explain: In order to calculate the Present Value cost of a project to be done 44 years in the future, one first has to calculate what the project will cost, in 2054 dollars. (This was the flaw inherent in all of theNiche's calculations; a flaw I repeatedly pointed out and he never acknowledged, let alone addressed or proved unfounded). To estimate the 2054 cost, we have to apply an expected inflation factor. Once we have that number, we can plug it into the present value calculator. To calculate the present value we have to use a discount rate. In order to do a semi-conservative, reliable calculation, your discount rate is going to have to be fairly close to the rate as used in the calculation of your inflation multiplier. Thus, you use the inflation factor to ramp up your number to 2054 dollars and then use very nearly the same number as your discount to ramp the number back to 2010 dollars. Hence the shortcut: The PV cost of a project to be performed 44 year from now should be pretty close to the actual cost of the same project today. I apologize for the long post, but I like to keep things factual and honest.

Oh my goodness, Niche. You are so far in over your head on this one it is almost sad to watch. One post you tell us that it will take $35.5 Million in 2010 dollars to maintain the dome for 45 years. Then you stumble into the accurate statement that it will take $88 Million (2010 Dollars) to maintain the Dome for 44 years. Now you are telling us it will take only $57.1 Million (2010 dollars) to maintain the Dome in perpetuity!!! Hilarious mathematics, my man. Once again, you have completely failed to account for rising costs. When you compare to either of your earlier calculations (even the earlier flawed ones), this one should not have even gotten past the giggle test. And now you are trying to tell us that it does not matter what a 2055 Dollar is worth? You are too much. If you indeed have an economics degree, you should get your money back. As I've demonstrated in earlier posts, your flaw is in your input. In the case of the demolition costs, you cannot determine the 2010 value of a payment to be made in 2055 by discounting the 2010 cost of the project to be paid for. You have to discount the 2055 cost to be paid for. Hence, the approximate 2010 present value of the cost of demolition/plaza construction in 2055 is $88 Million. Likewise to determine the present value of a stream of payments that will be required to fund maintenance for 44 years, one does not plug in the 2010 payment. One has to estimate the rising costs, then discount the $2 Million per year payment stream after adjusting the payment stream for inflation. When you discount that inflation-adjusted payment stream, you will come up with an approximate present value of, $88 Million for 44 years of maintenance. Again, your claim to be saving the taxpayers money recognizes the growth in the value of the money by investment, but it utterly fails to account for the increased costs of inflation. While you are correct that your discount rate provides more dollars, you are ignoring the fact that more dollars will be required each and every year due to inflation. Your calculations (except the one outlier where you stumbled into accuracy all assume steady payments of $2 Million per year (in the case of the maintenance) with no adjustment for inflation. That's a quick and easy way to bankruptcy. I saw that $600,000 number on Swamplot as well. But it seemed to be from a random non-authoritative source making an estimate. The $2 Million number comes from the people actually writing the checks. Significant numerical adjustments could be made reducing both the demolition estimates and the maintenance estimates we are using. But, honestly, unless you get a basic understanding of present value calculations, it hardly seems worth the effort. By the way, good Google find on the British consol. If nothing else, Niche, you've still got your Google skills.

I can't really say your treatment of inflation is improper per se, because you completely did not treat inflation. You ignored it altogether. You plugged the wrong numbers into your formulas. Garbage in, garbage out. Earlier you told us we could fund 45 years of maintenance for a mere $35.5 Million in 2010 dollars (post #217, check it out). Now, you seem to have stumbled into the reality that your calculations were fundamentally flawed and have admitted that the cost of mothballing for 44 years will be $88 Million in 2010 dollars. You in fact proposed mothballing it forever, but 44 years proves my point quite well. Now, you are again trying to glide by the fact that at the end of your 44 years of mothballing we still have a decrepit stadium that will need to be addressed/demolished/refurbished. Your mothballing proposal(even if only for 44 years rather than in perpetuity as you first suggested) costs exactly the same amount as demolishing it now. At the end of the 44 years, we would then get to spend another $88 Million (in 2010 dollars, perhaps 2-3 times that amount in 2054 dollars) to accomplish what we could do now. Cost to demolish and replace with the plaza now (in 2010 dollars): $88 million. Cost of TheNiche's proposal (in 2010 dollars): $176 million (and somehow you are going to fund parks and the restoration of bottomlands with the "savings" you've achieved over demolishing it now) Keep in mind, I am not a proponent of demolishing the dome. My initial and current response is that we are basically committed for at least $88 Million. If there is any chance that the contribution of that $88 Million towards enabling a private development scheme to come to fruition, we should be eagerly offering it up. I would probably prefer continual mothballing to demolition, personally. But let no one be confused - continuing the mothballing is NOT a route to saving money.

Agreed. I favor saving the Dome.

. . . and you're unemployed. I can do the math. Can you? The "rule" on inflation is that if you don't account for it, you're screwed. And you did not account for it. You cannot avoid the fact Niche, that you gave us a calculation that would provide a nominal dollar amount of $88 Million in 45 years, the exact same nominal dollar amount estimated for the project currently. It really cannot be much simpler. You gave us bad numbers. With your assumed 5% discount rate, the PV $9.3 million WILL NOT provide sufficient money in 45 years to do what $88 Million will do today. You can apply a 3% rate to it if you like and pronounce a $23.3 Million PV (which of course makes your argument even more ridiculously wrong-headed than it already is), but you will STILL only have $88 million nominal dollars in 45 years, not nearly enough to accomplish what $88 Million will accomplish today. Education is the path to understanding what you read on Google. Give it a shot. Here's some help to resolve your confusion that you might not be able to find quickly on Google... The language you posted above regarding inflation, to-wit: "The rule on inflation is that you must either consistently use inflation-free (real) inputs or (nominal) inputs that have inflation already built in" (which you no doubt cut and pasted from your Google search results) may be correct (although very sloppily phrased). The flaw in your analysis is that you did not apply it. You say you went with the former "inflation-free (real) inputs", but you did not. You used nominal inputs. If you were to use "real" inputs, you would first have to calculate the real 2055 value of the current $88 Million. THEN apply your discount rate to that result. Your flaw is in giving us the present value of 88 Million 2055 Dollars. That is not a relevant number. What we need is the present value of the amount it would cost to duplicate what 88 Million 2010 Dollars will accomplish. The shortcut version of that calculation is as I posted several posts ago: $88 Million.

Apparently the academic circles you travel in (i.e., Google) are not aware that universities, museums and other entities all over the country routinely establish endowments designed to provide $X per year in perpetuity. However do universities ever calculate the funding required for those endowments if the present value analysis in academic circles does not exceed 30 years? Hmmm?? You might give that question a spin on Google, Niche.

Interesting. Note, that the Reliant Park people have been clear that the $88 Million estimate is for demolition and replacement with a plaza, water features, etc. The media may have not understood or made that clear. Any idea what was included in that $6 Million for Texas Stadium? They did actually mention that it would be a lot more expensive than the demolition of Texas Stadium because of the close proximity of Reliant Stadium and Reliant Center. Out of curiosity, I started looking around. Demolition of the Seattle Kingdome 10 years ago cost $9 Million. Not sure what all was included in that price either. (i.e., was that just the implosion, or did that include haul and restoration of the land to flat surface, or did it also include the creation of parking lots (which I believe is what replaced the Kingdome).

You are joking, right, Niche? Anybody whose knowledge of time value is deeper than what can be gained from a 5 minute google search is laughing with me at your last response. Your calculation would make $88 million available for the dome demolition in the year 2055. Anyone here think we'll be able to demolish the Dome 45 years from now for the exact same nominal dollar amount as it would cost today? If so I've got some financial deals for you. Niche, you usually do a pretty good job creating your preferred facade of expertise and experience in every subject by utilizing your obvious skills with google. But sometimes google just is not enough. Sometimes some actual knowledge is required. Otherwise, you end up saying foolish things like your previous post.

Fail indeed; your analysis, that is. Your proposal requires we maintain the dome in perpetuity, not for 45 years. If you are going to maintain it for 45 years . . . Then what? Demolish it after 45 years? Present value of demolition is approximately $88 million. Total present value cost of your 45 year plan . . . $ 124 million +.

Quite right. (FWIW, I believe that service was to have been from Newark, not Houston.) The Chron article actually mentions that previous attempt.

Interesting. But if that has influenced their decision, someone should show them the "before" pictures of OSU's stadium. They previously had nothing worth keeping, unlike UH, which, as you say, has a pretty nice, very attractive stadium to start with.

More great news from Continental. Can't wait until they starting taking deliveries of those 787's. "On Monday, the Houston-based carrier announced plans, pending government approval, to fly daily from Houston to Lagos beginning Nov. 10, 2011, in what would be the city's first scheduled air service to Africa." Chron article

I've wondered the same thing, especially having been told on this very forum that: "UH removed the old track from Robertson Stadium, lowered the field about 20 feet, added 3,000 chairback seats along the sidelines, built new concourses, endzone grandstands seating about 6,000 combined, 4 concession/restroom buildings, and added the appropriate drainage for the new grass field in a multi-million dollar expansion project about 10 years ago. But shhhhh, don't tell the Dynamo..." and "Sorry, but Robertson Stadium is a really nice little college FOOTBALL stadium." and "Robertson has everything a TRUE fan needs; nice site lines (all seats are close to the action) and beer sales!" I wish they would pursue renovation. I like the look of Robertson Stadium.

They definitely need a larger store. And I understand Apple plans to develop more flagship or signature stores, so who knows? I wonder how much Apple benefits from being in the Galleria. I mean they are such a significant destination of their own...

I don't think you are recognizing how much it costs to maintain a structure the size of the Astrodome. We've been basically doing less than what you suggest for the past ten years or so (we have not even been power-washing it) and it costs us about $2 Million per year. For an accurate comparison of the cost of your proposal, we would have to calculate how large of a fund would be required to provide $2 Million+ per year in perpetuity. I'm thinking the amount required to fund that annual expenditure will be not much less than the $88 Million cost for demolition and replacement with green space/major water feature etc. In short, it really makes no financial sense to continue spending money merely maintaining a structure with no intention to ever use it. The real choices re: the Astrodome are as follows: (1) spend $88 Million to demolish the dome and we get green space/water features, etc. (2) Niche's proposal which would perhaps require something slightly less than $88 Million for which we get, in reality, nothing (note that the $ 2 million per year we are spending is neither power washing or really maintaining the structure in a way that will survive in perpetuity... it's looking pretty bad, including significant rust showing), or (3) investing another roughly $200 - $400 million to both preserve this historic structure and provide some pretty substantial additional facilities and amenities for Houston.